Appeal No. 2004-0332
Application No. 09/725,447
are further bent by an impact force of the collision to thereby
absorb the impact force, the examiner’s determination that these
prior art elements will inherently function in this manner is, on
the record before us, well taken. The light alloy composition of
the pillar stiffener 12 and inner pillar 13 and the spatial
relationship of their bent portions relative to the reinforcing
member 16 and the pillar structure as a whole provide reasonable
factual support for the examiner’s position in this regard.
Under these circumstances, the burden shifts to the appellant to
prove that the prior art does not possess the claimed
characteristics in question. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The appellant,
however, has not proffered any evidence to this effect.
Thus, the appellant’s position that the vehicle front pillar
recited in claim 1 distinguishes over that disclosed by Horiuchi
is not persuasive. We shall therefore sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 6 through 8
and 10 through 14 which stand or fall therewith, as being
anticipated by Horiuchi.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 6
through 8 and 10 through 14 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007