Appeal No. 2006-0617
Application 10/209,887
support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed April 20, 2005) and reply brief (filed
August 22, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art Wardell reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
have made the determination that the examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 3
and 6 through 8 will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Suffice to say that we agree with appellants’ assessment of the teachings of Wardell. In
sharp contrast to the present application and claims which are expressly directed to a seat
frame for an automotive seat, having a top rail, and having a headrest-mounting-tube
secured to the top rail for receiving a headrest post carried by a headrest, the Wardell
patent is directed to a detachable handle construction for a vacuum cleaner. As can be seen
in Figure 1 of Wardell, the handle associated with vacuum cleaner (10) includes a yoke (12)
pivotally mounted to the body of the vacuum cleaner and a tubular handle portion (14)
carried by the yoke. A detachable handle portion (13) is provided with a lower end portion
(22) that is configured to be telescoped into the open top end of tubular handle portion (14).
Lower end (22) of handle portion (13) includes a projecting lug (29) adapted to be received
in an offset recess (18) in the tubular handle portion (14). Handle portion (13) also includes
a slot or recess (28) into which is received a key (15) carried on the tubular handle portion
(14). A mechanism allowing the two handle portions to be clampingly secured together is
shown in Figures 1, 3 and 5, and described on page 2 of the Wardell patent.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007