Appeal No. 2006-1014
Application No. 10/255,081
indication that either the front ribs or the side ribs have a
higher rigidity when compared to one another. (Brief, page 7).
Appellants then argue that Suzuki does not disclose varying
rigidity by varying the geometry of the ribs. (Brief, page 7).
However, as the Examiner indicates in his answer, Suzuki clearly
teaches that the geometry (i.e., spacing, density and thickness)
of the ribs is manipulated to achieve the required rigidity.
(Answer, page 5; Column 9, lines 44-60). So, even if the edge
ribs 13 and front ribs 12 have the same honeycomb configuration,
the spacing, density and thickness of the ribs would control
their respective rigidities.
Appellants further argue that Suzuki does not teach
arranging the low rigidity and high rigidity portions parallel
to one another. We do not agree. Suzuki teaches that less
rigid lateral ribs 15 are arranged parallel to the higher
rigidity edge ribs 13. (Column 9, lines 44-56).
In addition to the aforementioned embodiments of Figures 4
and 6, other Suzuki embodiments support the Examiner’s
anticipation determination. For example, Suzuki’s first
embodiment, as shown in Figure 1b, is a monolithic resin-molded
body. Suzuki’s impact-absorbing body by virtue of it being a
monolithic (one-piece) body is, like the component disclosed by
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007