Ex parte GRAY

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 1998

08262461 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 20, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MARK F. GRAY
_____________
Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,4611
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before COHEN, MEISTER and FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 5, 6
and 13 through 15. In the answer (Paper No. 14), the examiner
withdrew the final rejection of claim 13 indicating that the
Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,461
2
claim now stands allowed. Claims 3 and 4, the only other
claims remaining in the application, stand withdrawn from
consideration by the examiner as being drawn to a non-elected
species pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). In light of the above,
only claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 are before us for review.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a vehicle child seat
and seat belt system therefor. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 14,
a copy of which appears in the “APPENDIX” to appellant’s
amended appeal brief (Paper No. 13).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Mathis 3,620,569 Nov. 16, 1971
Dukatz et al. 5,135,285 Aug. 04, 1992
(Dukatz)
Harmon 5,161,855 Nov. 10, 1992
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 14, 15, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Harmon in view of Mathis.
Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,461
A “SUPPLEMENT TO THE APPEAL BRIEF” (Paper No. 16), filed in response2
to an order for compliance (Paper No. 15), provided information omitted from
the earlier filed brief.
3
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Harmon in view of Mathis, as applied to
claim 14 and 5 above, further in view of Dukatz.
The text of the examiner's rejections and response to the
argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper
No. 14), while the statement of appellant’s argument can be
found in the amended appeal brief (Paper No. 13) .2
In the amended appeal brief (page 4), appellant expressly
indicates that dependent claims 15, 5, and 6 stand or fall
with claim 14. Therefore, we focus our attention, infra,
exclusively upon the content of claim 14.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claim 14, the applied
Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,461
In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have considered all of3
the disclosure thereof for what it would have fairly taught one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not only
the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would reasonably have been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re
Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
patents, and 3
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as well as the rejection of claims 15, 5, and 6
which stand or fall therewith. Our reasoning in support of
this determination appears below.
Claim 14 requires, inter alia, a child seat including a
seat back and a seat cushion, seat belt webbing having a
plurality of sections including first and second shoulder belt
sections, with each shoulder belt section having an upper end
and a lower end, anchor means permanently attaching the upper
ends of the shoulder belt sections immovably to the seat back,
Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,461
5
retractor means for pulling the lower ends of the shoulder
belt sections downward toward the seat cushion, and mounting
means for mounting the retractor means on the seat cushion.
The applied Harmon patent teaches a restraint system for
a child safety seat (frame 38, seat support 30, and back
support
32) having the upper end (tip 63) of shoulder strap 62
connected by a fastener 54 to cross brace 20 of the back
support frame 18 of the vehicle seat 10. As indicated, Harmon
teaches the attaching of an upper end of a shoulder belt to a
component of a vehicle seat, not to a seat back of a child
seat as presently claimed. The lower end of the shoulder
strap 62 (metal tip 63) is connected by fastener 65 to linkage
24, the linkage that pivotally interconnects vehicle seat
support frame 22 and back support frame 18.
The Mathis patent discloses (Figures 1 and 3) a seat
safety harness wherein each of a pair of shoulder-lap straps
Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,461
6
23 includes lower ends, with one lower end attached to a first
retraction reel means 17 at the rear of a seat portion 11 and
with the opposite lower end connected to a retraction reel
means 21 at a side of the seat portion 11. The patentee also
reveals (column 1, lines 23 through 27) that previously the
end of a shoulder strap was fixed at an anchorage point on the
side of a seat (the opposite end being attached to a harness
reel at the back or base of the seat).
We understand the examiner’s position on the asserted
obviousness of claim 14 as expressed in the answer. However,
a
review of the above evidence of obviousness reveals to us that
the claimed invention would not have been suggested thereby
when what appellant has informed us of in the present
application is set aside. Simply stated, it is our opinion
that a collective assessment of the teachings of Harmon and
Mathis by one having ordinary skill in the art would not have
suggested the invention of claim 14, i.e., a child seat with
Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,461
7
the upper ends of shoulder belt sections connected to the seat
back of the child seat and with the lower ends of the shoulder
belt sections being pulled down by a retractor means mounted
on the seat cushion of the child seat. As a concluding point,
we simply note that the child restraint system disclosed in
the Dukatz patent does not overcome the noted deficiencies of
the Harmon and Mathis teachings.

In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 14, 15, and 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon in view of
Mathis; and
reversed the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Harmon in view of Mathis and
Dukatz.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,461
8
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES M. MEISTER )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,461
9
Tarolli, Sundheim & Covell
1111 Leader Bldg.
Cleveland, OH 44114-1400