Appeal 2007-0816
Application 11/095,887
would not have considered Woody’s hand and wrist restraints to be belts,
much less seat belts.
Moreover, the hand and wrist restraints are on columns 10, which are
located above and away from the actual seating portion 5 of the device
(Woody, Figure 3). Because the restraints are above and away from the
seating portion of the device, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary
skill would not consider them to be “seat belts.”
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We agree with Appellant that Woody does not describe an infant/child
car seat having a seat belt releasably secured to the seat shell. Because
Woody does not disclose a device meeting every limitation in claims 1
and 3, we reverse the anticipation rejection of those claims.
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Woody and McQuade4 (Answer 3).
We reverse this rejection as well.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and adds the limitation that the
transponder which remotely activates the seat belt release button has a
microprocessor.
As discussed supra, we agree with Appellant that Woody’s remotely
activated hand and wrist restraints are not encompassed by the term “seat
4 McQuade, US 6,362,734 B1, Mar. 26, 2002.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013