Appeal No. 96-1201
Application 08/122,970
appellants’ specification states, that it is old and well known
to reinforce a tooling hole in an automotive body panel with a
surrounding circular depression. The examiner further states,
that DeRees teaches the formation of a depression in a body panel
which may be noncircular. The examiner specifically refers to
DeRees’ depressions 120 or 112 which have bases parallel to the
main panel and canted side portions 122 extending between the
parallel portion and the panel surface. The examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to provide, in the prior art as
admitted by appellants, a reinforcing depression of the shape
taught by DeRees with a nonfunneling bottom surface. The
examiner states as motivation the argument that a larger size
depression of the shape suggested by DeRees would add additional
strength to the body panel.
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the examiner and the appellants. As a
result of this review, we have determined that the applied prior
art does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the claims on appeal. Therefore, the rejection of
these claims is reversed. Our reasons follow.
Appellants’ first argument is that the examiner has
failed to state what constitutes the scope and content of the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007