Appeal Number: 2006-3291
Application Number: 10/178,845
Davis shows a lower portion of the seat back having a thickness less than that
of the upper portion. In particular, Davis describes the upper pillow as being 2.5”
thick and the lower portion being ¾” thick (col. 6, ll. 24-27).
This lower portion surface, by virtue of being lower than the upper portion,
creates a concave, hollow surface, and so creates a concavity.
Davis’s lower portion has a sacral counter pressure pad, whose location is
fixed, but positioned based on anatomical average measurements. The pad is
trapezoidal in shape with an upper width of about 3.5” and a lower width of about
1.5” and is no more than ½” thicker than the remainder of the lower back portion
(col. 6, ll. 28-35).
Therefore, even the overall sacral counter pressure pad thickness of 1.25” is
less thick than Davis’s 2.5” thick upper portion pillow.
Davis does not indicate the height of the sacral counter pressure pad on the
lower portion, but Davis does show that the height of the seat back, and therefore
the pillow, sacral counter pressure pad, and concavity, are adjustable using hook
and loop fasteners (col. 6, ll. 14-18).
The sacrum on a substantially larger user would be substantially higher on
Davis’s seat back than the sacrum on a substantially smaller user.
Therefore, a substantially larger user would adjust Davis’s seat back higher
than would a substantially smaller user.
It is commonplace for one user to accept the existing position of a seat rather
than readjust the seat after a different user sat in the seat. Although Davis
describes adjusting the seat, implicit in the use of Davis’s seat is the reality that
some users simply will not make the adjustment.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013