Appeal 2006-2530
Application 10/610,143
of automobile body parts to strengthen the structure (Keller, col. 3 ll. 1-31;
col. 4, ll. 1-18).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b), it must be
shown that each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or
under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover,
in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not only the
specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The hollow rib of Christie does not have a constant wall thickness
from the forward end to the rear end as recited in claim 2. As clearly seen in
Figure 2 of Christie, the middle portion of the hollow rib has a different
thickness as both the forward section and the rear end sections. Therefore,
the rib does not have a constant wall thickness. Accordingly, we determine
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013