Appeal No. 2002-0694
Application No. 08/712,369
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejections
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 10
through 12, 14 through 17, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Slick.
Independent claims 1, 14, and 29 address at least the
following features. Claim 1 requires a cold formed center sill
being formed from a single flat member. Claim 14 specifies a
beam comprising a one piece cold formed steel member. Claim 29
sets forth a center sill comprising a steel member having an
elongated body with portions interconnected by cold hardened
curved portions.
Like the examiner, we readily appreciate the relevance of
the Slick patent to the now claimed subject matter. More
specifically, this panel of the Board perceives that one versed
in the center sill art would comprehend the center sill 3 of
Slick (Fig. 3) as being configured of one piece pressed or rolled
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007