Appeal 2006-2983
Application 10/733,957
the control module (150) can also control adjustment of the stiffness of the seat
based on the signal from the pressure sensor (560).
Based on our interpretation of the scope of the claims and our findings as to
Breed’s disclosure, we find that Breed provides sufficient written description of the
claimed invention, because a person skilled in the art as of the filing date of Breed
would have understood that the Appellants were in possession of the invention
now claimed. Further, we find that Breed’s disclosure is sufficiently complete to
enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention
without undue experimentation. As such, claims 60, 62, and 64-68 are entitled to
the benefit of the filing date of Breed, because Breed discloses the claimed
invention in the manner provided by 35 USC § 112, first paragraph.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner erred in refusing to award claims 60, 62, and 64-
68 benefit of the filing date of Breed under 35 USC § 120, and thus erred in
rejecting these claims under 35 USC § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fortune.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 60, 62, and 64-68 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013