Appeal No. 2002-0694
Application No. 08/712,369
center sill, parameters for a fabricated center sill resulting
from such processes, as now claimed, would not have been obvious.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 through 9, 18,
19, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Heap in view of Meyer.
From our perspective, the applied evidence, collectively
considered, would not have been suggestive of the rejected
dependent claims at issue. First, the Heap document lacks a
disclosure of cold forming or hardening of a center sill or beam
and any suggestion therefor, as now claimed. Second, the Meyer
document does not overcome the deficiency of the Heap reference.
We do not share the examiner's view (answer, page 6) that
appellants' center sill or beam for use with the underside of a
vehicle is essentially in the same field as Meyer's structural
frame (metal wall stud).3
3 The test of whether a reference is from a nonanalogous
art is first, whether it is within the field of the inventor's
endeavor, and second, if it is not, whether it is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
involved. See In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174
(CCPA 1979). A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though
it may be in a different field of endeavor, it is one which
(continued...)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007