Appeal No. 2003-0867 Page 4
Application No. 09/688,104
said radiator support being made of magnesium or a magnesium alloy
material;
wherein said radiator support comprises a front portion, an opening
extending through said front portion, a leg portion extending vertically on each
side of said opening, a frame mount portion at a lower end of said leg portion for
attachment to a frame of the vehicle, an arm portion extending laterally from
each side of said front portion, an attachment portion extending longitudinally
from said arm portion for attachment to a body of the vehicle; and
wherein said radiator support is a monolithic structure being integral,
unitary, and one-piece.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Banthia et al. (Banthia) 5,059,056 Oct. 22, 1991
Kanemitsu et al. (Kanemitsu) 5,123,695 June 23, 1992
Junginger 6,068,327 May 30, 2000
Claims 1, 2, 4 to 6, 9 to 12, 14 to 16 and 18 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemitsu in view of Junginger.
Claims 7, 8, 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kanemitsu in view of Junginger as applied to claims 6 and 16 above,
and further in view of Banthia.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007