Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
adapted to be attached to the vehicle frame rails
(13). [Answer, page 4.]
The examiner considers that Ni does not disclose (1) a pair
of frame rails with a downwardly sloping intermediate section or
(2) attachment members extending in a generally vertical
direction from the cradle. The examiner takes the position that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to provide difference (1) is Ni in view of the teachings of
Wallace, and to provide difference (2) is Ni in view of the
teachings of Mukai. Implicit in the above is the examiner’s
position that the subject matter of claims 12-18 would result.
The examiner’s position in these matters is not well taken.
Our first difficulty with the standing § 103 rejection of
claims 12-18 is the examiner’s findings with respect to Mukai.
Initially, we note that members 14, 15 and 16 of Mukai are
described as being part of the frame rails 13 (see column 3,
lines 47-63), and that the suspension cross member 17 is secured
to members 14 and 15 by threaded fasteners 30 and 31 (see Figure
6; column 4, lines 61-68; column 6, line 66 through column 7,
line 11) that are designed to break away in the event of a front
end collision (column 6, lines 59-66; column 7, lines 6-11).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007