Appeal No. 2005-2211 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/715,002
shifts one or both of the top and bottom front walls vertically, such that horizontal impact
forces are converted at least in part to a vertical force upon receiving a horizontal frontal
impact during an initial stroke of the frontal impact." In the paragraph bridging pages 4
and 5 of appellant's specification, it is made clear that the transformation of the top and
bottom nose portions of the energy absorber from their configuration as shown in Figure
3 to their configuration as shown in Figure 4 is the "parallelogram motion" referred to in
the claims. We can see from Figures 3 and 4 that, upon a frontal horizontal impact, the
upper-front wall 54 and lower-front wall 57 are shifted vertically, with a commensurate
bending or inclination of the top wall 52 and upper-mid wall 53 of the upper nose portion
and the lower-mid wall 56 and bottom wall 55 of the lower nose portion, such that the
horizontal walls (52, 53, 56, 55) of each of the nose portions, or at least portions thereof,
remain essentially parallel with one another as the front walls shift vertically.
In light of the above, we conclude that the term "parallelogram motion" can fairly
be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as shorthand for the type of vertical
shifting of the front wall of the nose portion and commensurate substantially parallel
bending or inclination of the upper and lower horizontal walls of the nose portion seen in
Figure 4. While the examiner may be correct that appellant's nose portion does not
comprise a complete parallelogram, the claims do not require such. The rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite because of
the use of the terminology "parallelogram motion" cannot be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007