Appeal No. 2005-0496 Page 2
Application No. 10/032,633
The following is the only rejection before us on appeal:
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Gignac.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(mailed July 6, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection
and to the brief (filed November 12, 2003) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied Gignac patent, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reason
which follows, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection.
Appellant’s invention is directed to juvenile seats and booster seats for
automobiles, which, as pointed out on page 1 of appellant’s specification, are generally
known and are in relatively widespread use. Such seats are specially adapted for
children who are too small and/or light to be protected by standard automotive seats
and seat belts.
Each of appellant’s claims 1-17 recites either a “juvenile seat” or a “juvenile
booster seat.” The examiner has rejected these claims as being anticipated by Gignac,
1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,248,183, issued September 28, 1993 to Ginac et al.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007