Appeal No. 2003-0867 Page 10
Application No. 09/688,104
"[l]ower frame 66 can be made from any suitable material including, for example,
aluminum, magnesium, plastic, or steel. Preferably, lower frame 66 is cast from
magnesium to substantially reduce the weight of door 22 without sacrificing structural
integrity and strength."
Claims 1 and 14
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Kanemitsu and claim 1, it is our opinion that
the only difference is the limitation that the radiator support is made of magnesium or a
magnesium alloy material. Based on our analysis and review of Kanemitsu and claim
14, it is our opinion that the only difference is the limitation that the radiator support is a
die casting of a magnesium or magnesium alloy material. In reaching these
determinations, we consider the claimed radiator support being a single structural
member to be readable on either (1) Kanemitsu's upper shroud member 22 alone; (2)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007