Appeal No. 96-1201
Application 08/122,970
would necessarily add additional strength. This assumption is
not supported by any evidence adduced by the examiner. It is an
additional assumption on the examiner's part that added strength
is desirable or necessary. Furthermore, it might be expected
that a larger depression would have other adverse consequences.
Secondly, the disclosure of DeRees is actually related
to fabricating beams or rails out of sheet metal, and the
combined teachings of the admitted prior art and DeRees do not
suggest using the configurations disclosed in DeRees on vehicle
body panels as opposed to beams.
Thirdly, we are of the view that the examiner's
combination of references is based on hindsight, particularly,
inasmuch as the examiner has picked depression shapes 112 and 120
of DeRees while disregarding DeRees’ other disclosure of
additional reinforcement shapes. We note that the configuration
shown at 112 in DeRees would prevent funneling in only half of
the occurrences, for when the point of the configuration 112 is
facing downwardly, the configuration actually increases
funneling.
Since DeRees is completely silent with respect to any
teaching or suggestion regarding eliminating paint drips or runs,
and the examiner has chosen from all the reinforcement shapes of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007