Ex Parte Kain

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2005

10032633 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JAMES M. KAIN
____________
Appeal No. 2005-0496
Application No. 10/032,633
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before MCQUADE, NASE and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-17,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
BACKGROUND
The appellant’s invention relates to a juvenile seat having a cup holder movable
between a closed position and an opened position (specification, page 1). A copy of the
claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant’s brief.
Appeal No. 2005-0496
Application No. 10/032,633
Page 2
1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,248,183, issued September 28, 1993 to Ginac et al.
The following is the only rejection before us on appeal:
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Gignac.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(mailed July 6, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection
and to the brief (filed November 12, 2003) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied Gignac patent, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reason
which follows, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection.
Appellant’s invention is directed to juvenile seats and booster seats for
automobiles, which, as pointed out on page 1 of appellant’s specification, are generally
known and are in relatively widespread use. Such seats are specially adapted for
children who are too small and/or light to be protected by standard automotive seats
and seat belts.
Each of appellant’s claims 1-17 recites either a “juvenile seat” or a “juvenile
booster seat.” The examiner has rejected these claims as being anticipated by Gignac,
Appeal No. 2005-0496
Application No. 10/032,633
Page 3
which is directed to container holders for vehicles and, more particularly, to an armrest
or console assembly comprising such container holders. Simply stated, the examiner’s
position that Gignac’s armrest or console is a “juvenile seat” or “juvenile booster seat” is
unreasonable and untenable. A person of skill in the field of juvenile seats would
understand that a juvenile seat or booster seat is a seat specially adapted for children
who are too small and/or light to be protected by standard automotive seats and seat
belts and would not contemplate placing a child on an armrest or console of the type
disclosed by Gignac for such purpose. It thus follows that such a person would not
consider Gignac’s armrest or console assembly to be a “juvenile seat” or “juvenile
booster seat” as called for in appellant’s claims.
In light of the above, claims 1-17 are not anticipated by Gignac and the
anticipation rejection cannot be sustained. We thus find it unnecessary to consider the
appellant’s declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131 filed July 14, 2003.
Appeal No. 2005-0496
Application No. 10/032,633
Page 4
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-0496
Application No. 10/032,633
Page 5
BARNES & THORNBURG
11 SOUTH MERIDIAN
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204