Appeal No. 2001-0552
Application No. 09/277,412
manner consistent with the specification and construed as those skilled in the art would
construe them (see, for example, In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567
(Fed. Cir. 1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d
1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, we can think of no circumstances where the artisan, consistent
with the appellant’s specification, would construe the side portions of the outer panel 1 of
Habdas as being anything other than integral components of the outer panel 2 (i.e.,
tailgate).
In light of the foregoing, we cannot support the examiner determination that Habdas
discloses a door assembly for the tailgate of a pickup truck, wherein the door assembly
includes “a pair of elongated members” secured to the tailgate along opposite side edges
thereof, as now claimed. We conclude that the examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1
is not sustainable.
Conclusion
The rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Habdas is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007