Appeal 2007-1490
Application 10/707,484
1 that the term “headliner” should not be given any patentable weight since it
2 is recited in the preamble and it is an intended use limitation (FF 8).
3 Applicants argue claims 12 and 14-21 as a group (FF 6). Applicants’
4 sole argument is that the claim 12 limitation “headliner” should be
5 interpreted to mean a finished product, e.g., a device that can be mounted
6 inside a vehicle for providing an aesthetic covering for the roof’s sheet metal
7 and/or framework (FF 7). Applicants’ proposed claim construction is
8 narrower than the Examiner’s proposed claim construction. Here, we need
9 not decide who is right. Based on the record, even if the claim 12
10 “headliner” is interpreted to mean a structure that has a finished appearance,
11 the Applicants have failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the Examiner’s
12 findings with respect to Carroll are erroneous.
13 Applicants’ position that it takes in connection with its appeal is
14 directly contrary to Applicants’ position advanced earlier. In its background
15 section of its Specification, Applicants state that “Various conventional
16 headliner designs and their associated methods of manufacture are known
17 and disclosed” citing specifically to the Carroll 2002/0017805 publication
18 (FF 9). However, in its Appeal Brief, Applicants argue that Carroll does not
19 describe a finished headliner (FF 7). Applicants provide no explanation for
20 the contradictory positions it appears to take. The background section of
21 Applicants’ own Specification leads one to understand that the Applicants
22 considered and understood Carroll to describe a “conventional”, e.g.,
23 “finished” headliner. To advance a position before the Board that appears to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013