Appeal No. 2005-0182
Application No. 09/783,392
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Cave 2623212 Feb. 06, 1964
(published Australian Patent Specification)
Miyamoto 2186612 A Aug. 19, 1987
(published Great Britain Patent Application)
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over either Cave or Miyamoto (Answer, page 3). We
affirm both of these rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that both Cave (figure 1) and Miyamoto
(figure 4) teach the use of characters, marks or patterns on a seat
belt, and thus provide a “printed face” that may be readily grasped
and inherently prevents or at least lessens to some degree slippage
from the user’s grip due to the nature of the “printed face”
(Answer, page 3). The examiner further finds that the material
that forms the seat belt, as well as the type and color of the
2The examiner incorrectly lists this document as “2,623,321"
on page 3 of the Answer. However, appellant correctly lists this
document on page 3 of the Brief. Therefore we hold this error to
be harmless.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007