Ex parte SCHONHOFF et al. - Page 2




                 Appeal No. 97-4212                                                                                                                     
                 Application No. 08/630,031                                                                                                             

                          The appellants’ invention is directed to a composite                                                                          
                 bumper structure for an automotive vehicle.  The claim has                                                                             
                 been reproduced in an appendix to the Brief.                                                                                           


                                                               THE REFERENCES                                                                           
                          The references relied upon by the examiner to support the                                                                     
                 final rejection are:                                                                                                                   
                 Killea, Jr.                                  3,655,231                                    Apr. 11, 1972                                
                 Enomoto et al.                                        5-310092      2                     Nov. 22, 1993                                
                 (Enomoto) (JP)                                                                                                                         

                                                                THE REJECTION                                                                           
                          Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                                                        
                 unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Killea.                                                                                           
                          The rejection is explained in Paper No. 5 (the final                                                                          
                 rejection).                                                                                                                            


                                                                     OPINION                                                                            
                          In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this                                                                         
                 appeal, we have carefully assessed the claim, the prior art                                                                            
                 applied against the claim, and the respective views of the                                                                             

                          2A PTO translation of the reference is enclosed.                                                                              
                                                                           2                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007