Appeal No. 2003-0992
Application 09/934,026
explanation. The fact that Kuhns is classified in a different class for searching purposes from
Dresen is not alone convincing or persuasive that one with ordinary skill in the art would not find
the invention of Kuhns to be reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the appellant is
concerned. At most, that would be some indication of different fields of invention but not that
Kuhns would not be reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the appellant is concerned.
For these reasons, the Kuhns reference is not non-analogous art.
As is found by the examiner (Answer at 2), Dresen discloses the basic structure of a bed
liner for a pickup truck including side walls 42, front wall 34, and “longitudinally corrugated
bottom panel 18 joining the side and front walls.” The appellant does not dispute that Dresen
discloses each and every recited feature of independent claims 2, 6, and 11, except for the last
feature of each claim regarding the material from which the bed liner is made or fabricated, as
already reproduced above earlier in this opinion. According to claim 11, the bed liner is
fabricated of a mixture of a non-conductive material and conductive material for dissipating
electric charges. According to claim 6, the bed liner is fabricated of a plastic material and
including conductive material in at least a portion of said plastic material for dissipating electric
charges. According to claim 2, the bed liner is fabricated of a material comprising a mixture of a
non-conductive plastic and a conductive material selected from the group consisting of carbon
particles and carbon fibers.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007