Appeal 2007-1670
Application 10/102,565
(Finding of Fact 3). Our understanding is supported by the dictionary definition of
“sandwich” which means “to insert tightly between two other things” (Finding of
Fact 4). As such, under either interpretation, Dobson does not disclose the second
mounting feature sandwiched between the first mounting feature and the door
panel, as recited in claim 1. The claim rejections of dependent claims 3, 5-9, 11,
31, 32, 39, and 40 rely upon the underlying rejection of independent claim 1, and
thus we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Independent claim 16 similarly recites “the first mounting feature being
sandwiched between the second mounting feature and the door panel on the wet
side.” Dobson’s door panel assembly, once assembled, does not contain a first
mounting feature sandwiched between a second mounting feature and the door
panel on the wet side (Finding of Fact 6). Rather, when assembled, Dobson’s first
mounting feature (48) is located on the dry side (22) of the door panel (18)
(Finding of Fact 5). As such, we fail to see how Dobson could disclose the first
mounting feature being sandwiched between a second mounting feature and the
door panel on the wet side, as recited in claim 16. The claim rejections of
dependent claims 17-23, 33, 34, 41, and 42 rely upon the underlying rejection of
independent claim 16, and thus we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims. As for the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 24 as unpatentable
over Dobson, the Examiner has failed to present a prima facie case of obviousness
of independent claim 16, from which claim 24 depends. As such, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013