Ex parte BACINA et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 96-1201                                                            
          Application 08/122,970                                                        

                    The claimed invention relates to a reinforcement for                
          automotive body panels.  More specifically, the tooling holes are             
          configured so that paint draining from the tooling hole                       
          reinforcement points does not engender a drip or run.                         
                    Claim 1 reproduced below is further illustrative  of                
          the claimed subject matter.                                                   
                    1.  A reinforcement for an automotive body panel                    
          positioned in vertically extending orientation for receiving a                
          liquid surface coating thereon, the body panel including a                    
          generally vertically extending exterior surface, the                          
          reinforcement comprising;                                                     
                    means defining a depression on the surface, said                    
          depression having a portion parallel to said body panel and                   
          imperforate canted portions extending between said parallel                   
          portion and said exterior surface; and                                        
                    means defining a nonfunneling surface proximate the                 
          lower terminus of said depression for collecting excess liquid                
          surface coating applied to the panel and for preventing the                   
          liquid surface coating from running onto surfaces directly                    
          beneath said reinforcement.                                                   
                    The reference relied upon as evidence in a 35 U.S.C. §              
          103 obviousness rejection is:                                                 
          DeRees                    4,848,835                 July 18, 1989             
                                     THE REJECTION                                      
                    The examiner has rejected claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.               
          § 103 as unpatentable over appellants' admitted prior art in view             
          of DeRees.  According to the examiner, figures 1 and 2 of                     
          appellants’ drawings illustrate, and the accompanying portion of              

                                          -2-                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007