Appeal No. 2004-0052
Application No. 09/180,432
The examiner relies upon the following references as evidence
of obviousness:
Otani et al. (Otani) 4,504,455 Mar. 12, 1985
McCullough, Jr. et al. (McCullough)4,997,716 Mar. 05, 1991
Claims 1-10 and 15-421 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over McCullough in view of Otani (Answer, page 3).2
We affirm the examiner’s rejection essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that McCullough discloses a fire retarding
and fire shielding structural panel for a vehicle comprising a
1We note that this rejection in the final Office action
(Paper No. 24) was applied to claims 1-9, 11-41 and 43 (page 3).
Appellants were aware of the addition of claims 10 and 42 to this
rejection in the Answer (see the Reply Brief, pages 2, 3 and 8).
However, appellants did not petition the examiner’s decision to
include claims 10 and 42 to this rejection (see 37 CFR § 1.181).
Furthermore, appellants specifically discuss the section 103(a)
rejection over McCullough in view of Otani with regard to claims
10 and 42 (Brief, page 9). Accordingly, we determine that
appellants have had the opportunity to respond to the examiner’s
rejection of claims 10 and 42 under section 103(a) and we
consider these claims in the rejection under appeal.
2The rejections of claims 1-12 and 15-43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶1, and claims 10 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2, in
the final Office action (Paper No. 24) have been withdrawn by the
examiner (Answer, page 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007