Appeal No. 1999-1037
Application 08/804,284
appellant’s invention.
In the present application, appellant has reasonably
challenged (brief, page 12) the examiner’s findings with
respect to Carney ‘112. In response, the examiner has merely
reiterated (answer, page 6) that “[Carney ‘112] teaches that
it is known in the art to form collapsible members having
different resistances to crushing” without pointing out where
this teaching is found in the reference. Because it is not
apparent to us on this record that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have gleaned from Carney ‘112 a teaching of
providing collapsible members of varying crush resistance in a
highway safety crash cushion, we hold that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness of claims
11, 12 and 15 based on the teachings of Boedecker and Carney
‘112. It follows that we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 11, 12 and 15.
New Rejections under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007