Appeal No. 2004-0332
Application No. 09/725,447
Tracking the terminology employed in appealed claim 1, and
notwithstanding the appellant’s arguments to the contrary, the
vehicle front pillar 1 illustrated in Horiuchi’s Figure 5 clearly
constitutes a vehicle front pillar of a substantial tubular shape
comprising a fore half portion (the upper half of structure as
shown in Figure 5) oriented toward a front of the vehicle, a rear
half portion (the lower half of the structure as shown in Figure
5) oriented toward a back of the vehicle, and a reinforcing
member of a closed sectional structure (reinforcing member 16)
attached to the rear half portion so as to serve as a high-
rigidity section of the vehicle front pillar.1 The curved
portions of the pillar stiffener 12 and inner pillar 13 adjacent
the front flanges 12b and 13b clearly embody a number of bent
portions on the fore half portion of the pillar, each of which is
spaced forward from the reinforcing member in a longitudinal
direction of the vehicle. Although Horiuchi does not expressly
teach that the fore half portion of the pillar, and more
particularly the bent portions thereof, serve as a shock
absorbing section of the vehicle front pillar or that during
collision the fore half portion is deformed and the bent portions
1 Claim 1 does not, as implied by the appellant, exclude the
reinforcing member from contacting or extending into the fore
half portion of the pillar.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007