Appeal No. 2002-0694
Application No. 08/712,369
Simply stated, we find that the Heap patent is silent as to
the fabrication of the continuous center sill 20 (Fig. 3). Thus,
the teaching of Heap, lacking any disclosure of cold forming or
hardening, clearly cannot support the rejection of appellants'
claims as being anticipated thereby. For the foregoing reason,
we do not sustain the anticipation rejection based upon the Heap
patent.
The obviousness rejections
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 13, and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slick.
Dependent claims 2, 13, and 30 address specific yield
strength, thickness ranges, and strength and thickness,
respectively, of a center sill that is cold formed or cold
hardened. We earlier addressed the circumstance, however, that
the Slick reference, in and of itself, does not expressly teach
or inherently require cold forming or hardening in fabricating
the disclosed rolled steel center sill. Since the sole reference
relied upon lacks a teaching of cold forming or hardening a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007