Appeal No. 2004-1021
Application No. 09/707,450
respond to the limitations in independent claims 3 and 13
relating to the outer sleeve. To cure this shortcoming, the
examiner turns to Wieting.
Wieting discloses a reinforcement beam designed for use in
passenger vehicle doors to absorb lateral impacts. Recognizing
that the central region of the beam is critical insofar as
failure of the beam is concerned, Wieting proposes reinforcing
the central region against bending and/or kinking (see column 2,
lines 4 through 20). In one embodiment (see Figure 1), the beam
consists of a base tube 1 and a reinforcing tube length 2 pushed
over the central region of the base tube and affixed thereto by
suitable means (see column 2, lines 20 through 22; and column 4,
lines 27 through 34).
In proposing to combine Wycech and Wieting to reject
independent claims 3 and 13, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious
to provide the component of Wycech with the sleeve of
Wieting et al. in order to simplify the manufacturing
process, while providing a reliable and strong
reinforcing member to the suspension component. Such a
modification would have permitted the suspension
component to be reinforced with relative ease at
predetermined locations along the length of the
component, in that a manufacturer can visually ensure
that the reinforcing material is positioned at
locations of concentrated stress [answer, page 5].
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007