Appeal No. 2000-1582
Application 08/697,034
2. The laminated, truck bumper of claim 1 wherein said
mechanical finish is a bright finish.
The examiner takes the position that in view of Shanok’s
disclosure that aluminum foil “simulates the appearance of
chromium trim such as is commonly used as decoration for
automobiles” (col. 2, lines 24 to 27), it would have been
obvious to apply a foil finish to the bumper of Hagiwara “to
make the appearance of the bumper more aesthetically pleasing”
(final rejection, page 3).
We will not sustain this rejection. Assuming that the
examiner’s proposed combination would meet the “mechanical
finish” limitation of parent claim 1, we do not consider that
one of ordinary skill would have derived any suggestion or
motivation from Shanok to modify Hagiwara as the examiner
proposes. Since the aluminum foil 16 of Shanok is disclosed
as being encapsulated in a clear plastic molding strip 12 used
as border trim for the rear window of an automobile, one
skilled in the art would not have been taught thereby to apply
it to a rubber or plastic bumper as disclosed by Hagiwara.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007