Appeal No. 1998-1968
Application 08/425,293
Indeed, the detailed descriptions of Figures 3 and 7 in the
underlying specification (see column 3, lines 3 through 50),
which expressly refer to the rear head inner panel 11 and make
no mention of pillar inner panel 8, lend credence to the
latter view.
At best, from the examiner’s standpoint, the portions of
the Shoda disclosure relied upon to meet the above noted
limitations in claims 1 and 11 are ambiguous. It is well
established that an anticipation rejection cannot be
predicated on an ambiguous reference. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d
893, 899, 134 USPQ 355, 360 (CCPA 1962). Therefore, the
examiner’s determination that Shoda discloses each and every
element of the invention set forth in independent claims 1 and
11 must fall.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 11, or of claims 2 through
10 and 12 through 15 which depend therefrom, as being
anticipated by Shoda.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007