Appeal No. 97-0338
Application 08/229,398
skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ
143, 147 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707
n.3, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Lalu, 747
F.2d 703, 705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the
present case, we do not consider that a prima facie case of
obviousness is presented because none of the applied references
teaches a shield for a vehicle which covers a portion of the
vehicle other than that to which the shield is rigidly attached.
Thus, the Willey shield is rigidly attached to the hood and
protects only the front of the hood; the Jeep Cherokee BUG-GARD
(Ex. E) is rigidly attached to the upper portion of the grille
and thereby to the fenders and covers only that portion and the
top front of the fenders; and the Range Rover BUG-GARD (Ex. F) is
rigidly attached to the combined hood and fender tops and covers
the front of the hood and the front tops of the fenders. By
contrast, although the claimed shield is mounted to the hood, it
also wraps around the leading edge of the fender, even though, as
recited, the hood does not include the leading edge of the
fender.
While we agree with the examiner that the Jeep Cherokee and
Range Rover BUG-GARD shields would obviously provide increased
protection for the front fender surface (answer, page 5), we do
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007