Appeal No. 1998-1968
Application 08/425,293
respectively embody an inner projection, outer projection and
stiffener projection meeting these limitations.
To support this determination, the examiner relies on a
version of Shoda’s drawings (see the main answer, Appendix I)
which differs from the version actually contained in the
reference. The examiner generated the modified drawings by
resolving several purported inconsistencies in the reference
drawings (see pages 6 through 8 in the main answer). The
problem here is that the examiner’s analysis of the reference
drawings, which are inconsistent to some degree, is unduly
speculative. By way of example, it is critical to the
examiner’s position that
the lowermost structural component depicted in cross-section
in Figures 3 and 7 is pillar inner panel 8 rather than the
indicated rear head inner panel 11. According to the
examiner, this interpretation of Figures 3 and 7 is compelled
by the content of the other drawing figures, particularly
Figures 1, 2 and 5. It is just as conceivable, however, that
Figures 3 and 7 as shown in the reference are correct, and
that the other drawing figures are in need of modification.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007