Appeal No. 2006-0409 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/439,736
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pearson in view of Tremblay and Yu. We initially note that the test
for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner is of the view that Pearson describes the invention of claim 1 (see
answer at page 3). The examiner relies on Tremblay for disclosing a safety interlock 58
for locking the seat in transport position and for disabling chairlift operation unless the
seat is locked in the transport position. Yu is relied on for disclosing a sensor for
monitoring the occupancy status of a seat and for monitoring operation of other devices
in the vehicle such as a seat belt. The examiner concludes:
. . . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify Pearson to include the use of a safety bar in
interaction with the operation of his advantageous apparatus as taught by
Tremblay et al in order to improve the safety of the apparatus. In addition,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to modify Pearson to incorporate the use of a second sensor
for monitoring the status of the locking bar in his advantageous apparatus
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007