Appeal No. 94-4094
Application 07/900,769
center frame as shown by Figure 1 of the application, wherein the
second plate is integral to the structural panel, and the
strength member is a part of a vehicle body framework. The
fabricating method further includes the step of pressing the pre-
formed sub-honeycomb panel against the second plate with an
adhesive layer therebetween to connect the sub-honeycomb panel to
the second plate.
We have carefully reviewed the examiner’s stated rejection
which is based on the combined teachings of four prior art
references and certain prior art admissions in the 2
specification. However, we agree with appellants that there is
no reason for combining the teachings of the prior art in the
manner suggested by the examiner to reach the combined features
of the appealed claims. In this regard, we emphasize, as
appellants have in their Brief, that the claimed method is
directed to the fabrication of a floor panel of a vehicle body.
In contrast, the principal references relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness, i.e., Kaller and Vogt, are directed
to methods of fabricating headliners which are mounted to the
roof of the vehicle. Thus, even assuming for purposes of
2 The examiner has eschewed reliance on the prior art ?time consuming?
technique reported in the specification at page 3, line 12 to page 4, line 15,
which is apparently the closest prior art to the now claimed invention.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007