Appeal No. 2002-1548
Application No. 09/408,042
examiner has made the following findings in the final rejection
(page 2),
Dominguez et al discloses a car body comprised of two
longitudinal beams shown in figure 4 at the point where the
roof meets the side walls. A self supporting roof closing
plate 42 is attached in an air tight and water tight manner.
Transverse roof arches are located above the roof closing
plate 42 are also shown in figure 4 and extend from the
corner of the vehicle to the center of the car and are
attached to end running boards 46. These arches are placed
directly on top of the closing plate 42. Auxiliary units 44
are placed on the transverse roof arches, another auxiliary
member is in the form of an opening to accept lading into
the car body. The closing plates supports a body cover
panel 52 wherein the cover panel has a hatch 5 that can be
opened. The body cover panel 52 substantially covers the
each of the transverse roof arches. Another body cover
panel straddles the hatch opening as shown in figure 4.
Like appellants (brief, pages 5-10), we find no
correspondence between the car body structure seen in Figures 1
through 4 of Dominguez and that set forth in claims 1, 3 through
8, 11 through 14 and 16 through 20 on appeal. With particular
regard to appellants’ independent claim 1, we note that even if
we could agree with the examiner that Dominguez (Fig. 4) shows a
car body including two longitudinal roof beams (unnumbered) and a
roof closing plate (42) indirectly fastened to them, and
transverse roof arches (unnumbered) connected at their ends to
the roof beams and located above the roof closing plate, and
auxiliary units (44) placed on the transverse roof arches, we
would nonetheless agree with appellants that the examiner’s
conclusion that the roof plate (42) of Dominguez Figure 4 is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007