Appeal Number: 2006-3291
Application Number: 10/178,845
Davis’s sacral counter pressure pad would thus be at different heights for
different users, and in particular, once Davis’s seat was positioned to support a
large person, even were that large person to position the pad in the sacrum region,
a significantly smaller person would encounter that pad above that region instead,
absent any further adjustment of the seat.
Davis describes the height of the seat back as 17”, the height of the upper
portion as 4”, the depth of the upper portion as 2.5” and the depth of the lower
portion as .75”. (col. 6, ll. 19-27).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Davis.
We note that the appellant argues these claims as a group8. Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative of the group.
The examiner found that the claim limitation describing the structure of the
lower portion of the seat in claim 1 contains a limitation of intended use because
the size of the lower portion is described in terms of the user and where the user
locates a worn belt (Answer 6). That is, the claimed concavity is positioned so as
to fulfill an intention of not touching a particular user, not in an objectively
specified location.
As the above facts demonstrate, the height of Davis’s back portion, below the
sacral counter pressure pad will be substantially higher for a larger user than a
smaller user. The height at which the sacrum of a large person with substantial hip
8 Although the appellant states that claim 4 defines over Davis on its own merits
(Br. 13), the appellant does not present any argument supporting this statement.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013