Appeal No. 2005-1126
Application No. 09/846,141
of Francois and Andersen would not have rendered this subject
matter obvious within the meaning of § 103(a).
We shall sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 5, and dependent claims 6, 7,
14/5, 15/5 and 16/5, as being unpatentable over Francois in view
of Andersen.
The torsion bar disclosed by Francois constitutes a
stabilizer bar meeting all of the limitations in claim 5, with
the Francois torsion tube 10, structural members 13 and
reinforcing cylinders or sleeves 16, 16' respectively embodying a
fiber reinforced composite rod, first and second arms and first
and second plugs as set forth in the claim. Hence, Francois
establishes that the subject matter recited in claim 5 lacks
novelty.1 Lack of novelty is, of course, the ultimate or epitome
of obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ
569, 571 (CCPA 1982).
Dependent claims 6, 7, 14/5, 15/5 and 16/5 fall with parent
claim 5 since the examiner has not challenged the rejection
thereof with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
1 Consequently, the examiner’s application of Andersen in
combination with Francois to reject claim 5 is, at worst,
superfluous.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007