Appeal No. 2004-2346 Page 8
Application No. 09/876,519
Even assuming that Staser does illustrate a hole in the bottom of the air dam
housing in Figure 2, we find no suggestion in either of the applied references to modify
Staser to provide the motor 62 with electrical leads which extend through said hole and
an opening in the vehicle roof so as to arrive at appellants’ claimed invention. In light of
Staser’s disclosure that the motor 62 is energized by a motor controller 76, appellants’
argument on page 8 of the brief that any electrical leads extending through the roof and
into the air dam housing would presumably be electrical leads from the motor controller
76, not the motor 62 itself, is well taken. We do not share the examiner’s view that this
would satisfy the language of claim 9 and find no suggestion in the applied references
to run electrical leads directly to the motor 62 from inside the vehicle passenger
compartment.
For the reasons discussed above, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 9 or claims 10, 12 and 13 depending therefrom. Inasmuch as the rejections of
claim 7 as being unpatentable over Staser in view of Minnick and Rich, claim 8 as being
unpatentable over Staser in view of Minnick, Rich and Pokorney and claims 11 and 14
as being unpatentable over Staser in view of Rich, Racine and Minnick are grounded in
part on the examiner’s flawed determination, discussed above, with regard to providing
Staser’s motor with electrical leads extending through a hole in the housing and an
opening in the roof, it follows that we also cannot sustain these rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007