Appeal No. 98-1026
Application 08/423,067
Marschak 4,322,006 Mar. 30, 1982
Claims 1, 3-7, 11-15 and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.
S. C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Levenhagen in view of
Bender. Claims 2, 16 and 22 stand similarly rejected with
further reliance on Marschak.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 et al., it is
the examiner’s position that
Levenhagen covers all the structural features as set
forth by the applicant except for the trim portion
having a hollow enclosed beam construction.
However, the prior art of Bender discloses a hollow
peripheral channel for a trim portion. Therefore,
it would seem that one of ordinary skill in the art
could modify Levenhagen’s invention by constructing
the front trim portion with a hollow enclosed beam
as taught by Bender. [Answer, page 4.]
Appellants’ argument in response to this rejection may be
summarized as follows:
. . . first, Bender is not within the scope and
content of the prior art because it is non-analogous
art; second, there is no teaching or suggestion in
either Levenhagen or Bender to make the alleged
combination other than by use of hindsight
reconstruction; and, finally, even when combined
Levenhagen and Bender fail to teach or suggest all
of the claimed elements in the rejected claims.
[Brief, paragraph spanning pages 5 and 6.]
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007