Appeal 2007-1490
Application 10/707,484
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
2 appeal is:
3 Wandyez US 6,086,145 Jul. 11, 2000
4 Carroll US 2002/0017805 A1 Feb. 14, 2002
5
6 Claims 12 and 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
7 anticipated by Carroll (Final Rejection 3 and Answer 3).
8 Claims 12 and 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
9 anticipated by Wandyez (Final Rejection 3 and Answer 3).
10 Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
11 anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
12 over Carroll (Final Rejection 4 and Answer 4).
13 Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
14 anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
15 over Wandyez (Final Rejection 4 and Answer 5).
16 BACKGROUND
17 The invention relates to a headliner structure for use in the interior
18 roof of a vehicle. The headliner has at least one top layer with surface
19 contours and at least one bottom layer with surface contours defining a
20 cavity in between.
21 B. Issue
22 The issue is whether Applicants have shown that the Examiner has
23 failed to sufficiently demonstrate that there is a legal basis for rejecting
24 claims 11, 12, and 14-21 over Carroll.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013