Ex parte MORAN et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 15, 1998

08474943 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 7, 1995.1
Claim 20 was also finally rejected, but was cancelled2
by an amendment filed February 3, 1997.
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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MELISSA A. MORAN and KEVIN P. MORAN
__________
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,9431
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before CALVERT, ABRAMS and STAAB, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 to
3, 5, 6 and 8 to 19. The other claims remaining in the2
application, claims 4 and 7, were indicated as allowable if
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
A translation of this document, prepared for the PTO,3
is enclosed herewith. All references in this decision to
Chollet by page and line are to pages and lines of the
translation.
2
rewritten in independent form. Also, in his answer the
examiner states that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and
the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been
withdrawn. Since claim 12 was rejected only under § 112,
claims 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 to 11, 13, 14 and 16 to 19 remain for
our consideration.
The subject matter in issue concerns a child restraint
system, a clip for use therewith, and a method for securing a
child in such a system. The claims on appeal are set forth in
the appendix to appellants’ brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Peek 4,592,592 Jun.
3, 1986
Chollet et al. (Chollet) 93/21044 Oct. 28,3
1993
(WIPO Application)
The claims on appeal stand finally rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 and 17 to 19, unpatentable over
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
3
Peek in view of Chollet, under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
(2) Claims 9 to 11, 13, 14 and 16, anticipated by Chollet,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We have fully considered the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellants’ brief and the examiner’s
answer. Our conclusions as to each of the rejections are
given under separate headings below.
Rejection (1)
The basis of this rejection is set forth on pages 4 and 5
of the examiner’s answer.
First considering claim 1, appellants argue that there is
no incentive in the prior art to modify Peek to provide a
securing device, as disclosed by Chollet in Fig. 7 et seq.,
for securing the restraining strap 40 of Peek to shoulder
straps 30a and/or 30b. We do not agree. The disclosed
purpose of Peek’s restraining strap 40 is to prevent shoulder
straps 30 “from slipping on the belt 20” (col. 4, lines 45 to
49), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill,
as appellants indicate in the sentence bridging pages 7 to 8
of their brief, that Peek’s strap 40 “would likely perform
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
4
[this] function better at a lower position [on the shoulder
straps].” One of ordinary skill would therefore have been
motivated to provide a means to keep strap 40 at such lower
position, where it would be better able to keep straps 30 from
slipping on belt 20.
Chollet discloses a means for securing a strap 7 to belts
4 and 6 so that the strap will not rise toward the face of the
user (page 5, lines 13 to 20). In view of Chollet’s
disclosure, we conclude that it would have been obvious to
utilize the securing means of Chollet, such as that disclosed
in Figs. 7 to 13, to retain the Peek strap 40 in a lower
position on straps 30.
Appellants argue that the combination of Peek and Chollet
would not meet all the limitations of claim 1 because the
Chollet clip does not have “an opening through which at least
one of said shoulder straps is positioned” (claim 1, lines 6
to 7; emphasis added). However, as the examiner points out on
page 7 of the answer, Chollet’s strap 6 extends through
opening 26, around bar 24, and back through 26, thus meeting
this limitation of the claim.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1,
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
5
and of claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 grouped therewith (brief, page 4).
Claim 8 recites that “said securing device comprises a
cam buckle.” Appellants contend that this feature is not
taught or suggested by Chollet, but the examiner asserts on
page 7 of the answer that Chollet’s lever arm and cam portion
28 provide a cam buckle. We consider the examiner’s position
to be well taken, and will sustain the rejection of claim 8.
With regard to method claims 17 to 19 the examiner states
(answer, page 8):
In the rejection of claims 17-19, the examiner holds
that the use of the structure of the combination of
Peek and Chollet, for securing an occupant within
the seat and adjusting the restraint device, in the
manner discussed in detail above, would inherently
and necessarily encompass the “method for securing”
steps of claims 17-19.
However, we agree with appellants that the applied combination
of references does not teach or suggest the claimed method.
Claim 17 recites, inter alia, positioning the shoulder straps
onto the child with the clip in a first position, moving the
clip relative to the shoulder straps to a second position,
and then securing the clip to at least one of the shoulder
straps. We find no disclosure in Peek, nor do we consider it
to be inherent in the use of Peek’s disclosed apparatus, as
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
6
modified by Chollet, that these steps would be performed when
the shoulder straps 30a and 30b were placed over a child’s
chest and strap 40 was secured to them. In particular, there
is no teaching or suggestion in either reference that Peek’s
strap 40 would be moved from one position to another on the
shoulder straps before securing it to one or both shoulder
straps.
We therefore will not sustain the rejection of claims 17
to 19.
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
7
Rejection (2)
The argument with regard to claims 9 to 11, 13 and 14
centers around whether the clip disclosed in Chollet’s Figs. 7
to 13 includes the following element of claim 9:
maintaining means, connected to said base
member, for maintaining sliding engagement of said
base member with at least one of the shoulder straps
when the securing device is released.
We do not find this terminology in the specification, but it
is evidently intended to refer to the slots 36 and tongue 40
of appellants’ clip 34.
The examiner reads the above-identified means on the bar
24 and slot 26 arrangement of Chollet, contending that when
the bar is in the position shown in Fig. 10, strap 6 can move
relative to base member 22 of the clip (answer, pp. 4 and 8).
Appellants argue, first, that in Fig. 10 position the Chollet
clip could not slide on the belt 6, but is merely at an
intermediate position. However, this argument is not
sustainable in view of Chollet’s disclosure at page 11, lines
11 to 14, that (emphasis added):
In the following stage, shown in figure 10, the bar
is swung in the direction of body 22 inside the fold
35, and the body of the loop is adjusted in position
by sliding over element 6 of the belt.
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
8
Thus it is evident that in the Fig. 10 position, the belt is
movable relative to the clip, and vice versa.
Appellants further argue that the Chollet clip has no
means for “maintaining” engagement with the strap, since “the
strap can easily slide off the end of the element (24)”
(brief, page 10). This argument is not persuasive, because
Chollet does provide structure which would tend to prevent the
belt 6 from easily sliding off bar 24, in that bar 24 has
notches 34 of a length at least equal to the width of the
belt; see page 11, lines 1 to 3, and Fig. 8. Thus, as shown
in Figs. 8, 9 and 10, there is a “head” on the end of bar 24
which would tend to prevent belt 6 from slipping off bar 24,
and therefore would tend to maintain sliding engagement of the
base member with the strap, as called for by claim 9.
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 are grouped with claim 9 (brief,
page 4) and fall therewith.
The additional limitations of claim 16 are considered to
be met by Chollet for the same reasons as discussed above with
regard to claim 8. Specifically, Chollet’s body member 24 is
rotatably mounted on the base member 22, and has a camming
portion 29 and a lever arm 38.
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
9
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 9 to 11, 13, 14 and
16 will be sustained.
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
10
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject the claims on appeal is
affirmed as to claims 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 to 11, 13, 14 and 16,
and
reversed as to claims 17 to 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
11
Appeal No. 97-4178
Application No. 08/474,943
12
Melissa and Kevin Moran
W145 N10195 Raintree Drive
Germantown, WI 53022