Appeal No. 2006-0617
Application 10/209,887
§ 103 based on Nemoto in view of Hann (2,296,316). See pages 2-4 of the examiner’s
answer. As a result of the foregoing actions, only the rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 6
through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wardell (1,836,348) remains for
our review on appeal. There are no remaining rejections of dependent claims 4 and 5, thus,
the appeal as to those claims is dismissed.
As can be seen from Figure 1 of the application drawings, and as clearly set forth in the
specification and claims, appellants’ invention is directed to a seat frame (23) for an
automotive seat, having a top rail (30), and having a headrest-mounting-tube (28) secured
to the top rail. The headrest-mounting-tube (28) has an open top end for receiving a
headrest post (24, 29) mounted to a headrest (20). The open top end of the headrest-
mounting-tube also includes a keyway-pocket (37) that cooperates with a key (32) on the
sleeve portion (24) of the headrest post to ensure proper alignment and orientation of the
headrest post with regard to the headrest-mounting-tube (28) and the seat frame (23).
Independent claims 1 and 2 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy
of those claims can be found in the Appendix attached to appellants’ brief.
As noted above, the sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims is:
F. Wardell 1,836,348 Dec. 15, 1931
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary with respect to the
remaining § 102 rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellants and the
examiner regarding that rejection, we make reference to page 4 of the final rejection (mailed
November 25, 2003) and the examiner's answer (mailed June 22, 2005) for the reasoning in
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007