Appeal No. 95-5059
Application 08/157,872
Section 103 are based upon the application of Daimler Benz as
discussed above with regard to the Section 102 rejection. Since
the secondary references cited by the examiner against other
aspects of the claimed subject matter fail to alleviate the
shortcoming in the manner in which Daimler Benz was applied
above, it is our view that in none of the rejections is a prima
facie case of obviousness established against the claimed subject
matter.
This being the case, none of the Section 103 rejections are
sustained.
REJECTIONS MADE BY THIS PANEL OF THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND
INTERFERENCES PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
New Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 1 through 4 are rejected as being anticipated by
Daimler Benz. At the outset, we point out that the appellant’s
claims are directed to a vehicle body extension “for” mounting on
an exterior fender surface, and not to the combination of a
vehicle body extension and an exterior fender surface of a
vehicle. That is, the intended use of the body extension is upon
a vehicle in a particular location.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007