Appeal No. 2003-0867 Page 14
Application No. 09/688,104
Based on our analysis and review of Kanemitsu and claim 20, it is our opinion
that the differences are the limitations that the claimed radiator support1 is made of
magnesium or a magnesium alloy material and is a monolithic structure being integral,
unitary, and one-piece.
In our view, the applied prior art does not teach or suggest modifying
Kanemitsu's upper shroud member 22, shroud member 23, shroud panels 21 and
support member 26 to be a monolithic structure being integral, unitary, and one-piece.
While the applied prior art does teach or suggest modifying each of Kanemitsu's upper
shroud member 22, shroud member 23, shroud panels 21 and support member 26 to
be a single structural member made of cast magnesium, there is insufficient guidance
in the teachings of Kanemitsu and Junginger for an artisan to have combined
Kanemitsu's upper shroud member 22, shroud member 23, shroud panels 21 and
support member 26 together to be an integral, unitary, and one-piece monolithic
structure. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
1 Claim 20 recites that 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, [and] an attachment portion extending longitudinally from said arm
portion for attachment to a body of the vehicle."
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007