Appeal No. 97-0338
Application 08/229,398
Claim 52 defines a vehicle which differs from the Jeep
Cherokee and Range Rover, in that it recites that “the hood does
not include the vehicle's top front and side corner surfaces
which form a leading edge of the vehicle's fender.” In other 5
words, the claim is drawn to a vehicle having a hood arrangement
as disclosed by Willey (see footnote 3, supra). The issue in
this case therefore is, would it have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, in view of the Jeep Cherokee and/or
Range Rover BUG-GARDs, to provide the Willey shield with a
portion wrapping around the leading edge of the fender.
Having fully considered the record in light of the arguments
presented by appellant in his brief and reply brief, and by the
examiner in the answer, we conclude that the applied prior art
does not make out a prima facie case of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary
5We note that this language appears to lack antecedent
basis in the description, as required by 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1).
Other claim language lacking such antecedent basis is “wherein
when the hood ... or fender underneath” (claim 52, lines 27 to
35), and “wherein said mounting ... from the vehicle”(claim 57,
lines 2 to 10).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007