Appeal No. 2005-0182
Application No. 09/783,392
faces” of Cave and Miyamoto would prevent, to some extent, slippage
of the seat belt from the user’s grip (see the Answer, sentence
bridging pages 3-4). We note that the extent or amount of slippage
prevented is not recited in claim 1 on appeal. We further note
that the location of any embossed pattern has only been specified
as “a location selected to be grasped by a user” (see claim 1 on
appeal), thus reading on any location on the seat belt (Answer,
page 4).
Appellant argues that the fiber pile of Cave is used for the
purpose of attenuating the normal effect of a seat belt rubbing
abrasively on a user’s clothing, and has no other function (Brief,
page 4). Appellant further argues that there is no disclosure in
Cave that the pile has any effect on the grip and, without any
disclosure as to the coefficient of friction produced by the pile,
it cannot be assumed that a better grip will result (Brief, page
5). Similarly, appellant argues that the purpose of the belt
arrangement taught by Miyamoto is different from that of the
claimed subject matter (Brief, page 6). Appellant alleges that the
coefficient of friction of the high visibility material seat belt
arrangement of Miyamoto “may very well be lower” than the normal
belt surface (id.).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007