Appeal No. 2004-0332
Application No. 09/725,447
flanges 12b and 13b constitute bent portions which are inherently
capable of deforming in the manner specified in claim 1.
The appellant counters that Horiuchi is not anticipatory
because:
[s]ince the reinforcing member 16 is in contact with a
fore portion of the inner pillar 13 forming one part of
a fore half portion, the pillar stiffener 12 of the
front pillar 1 does not undergo shock absorbing
deformation when subjected to a colliding impact force
acting from the front of the vehicle. . . .
Therefore, Horiuchi does not disclose or suggest that
the rear half portion is oriented toward a back of the
vehicle, nor does the reference disclose a reinforcing
member attached thereto so as to serve as a high
rigidity section of the vehicle front pillar. Further,
Horiuchi does not disclose that at least one bent
portion is spaced forward from the reinforcing member
in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle. In
addition, Horiuchi fails to disclose or suggest that
during collision, the fore half portion is deformed and
the at least one bent portion is further bent by a
colliding impact force to thereby absorb the colliding
impact force, as recited in claim 1 [supplemental
brief, pages 6 and 7].
The appellant also submits that the so-called bent portions
highlighted by the examiner in the marked-up copy of Horiuchi’s
Figure 5 are merely joint portions between the front and rear
flanges of the pillar (see pages 7 and 8 in the supplemental
brief) and that the examiner has failed to provide any objective
evidence or cogent technical reasoning to support a conclusion
that these bent portions will inherently deform as set forth in
claim 1 (see page 8 in supplemental brief).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007