Appeal No. 2005-2211 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/715,002
We shall, however, sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 15, and 29 which
depends therefrom3, as being indefinite because the limitation "whereby energy directed
against a knee of an impacted person is converted into a throwing force that directs the
person in a direction generally perpendicular to the line of impact and away from the
vehicle bumper system" appears to be inconsistent with the structure and performance
of appellant's disclosed bumper system for the reason articulated on page 4 of the
answer. Appellant's specification states on page 3 that the "impacted person is initially
'caught' and then 'thrown' in a direction away from the line of impact" and, on page 5,
that, "[u]pon a continuing impact stroke (Fig. 5), the top and bottom horizontal sections
23-24 provide a 'throwing' action, as shown by increasing forces 31 and 31'," such that
"[t]he combination of these forces 31 and 31' 'throw' the impacted human 29 upward in
a direction off the bumper beam 21." The appellant's specification, however, does not
explain, by means of an analysis of the forces, for example, why such throwing force will
direct the person, as distinguished from the person's knee, in a direction away from the
vehicle bumper system rather than, as the examiner contends on page 4 of the answer,
into the automobile.
3 Although claim 24 also depends from claim 15, the examiner inexplicably did not include it in the
indefiniteness rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007