Appeal No. 2005-2633 Page 4
Application No. 10/254,376
and a plurality of spaced energy-absorbing, head-impact mechanisms
formed on the sheet for absorbing energy of an impact with the headliner by
a passenger of the vehicle wherein each of the head-impact mechanisms
include a plurality of spaced-apart, energy-absorbing, thermoplastic
structures which are integrally molded to and extend upwardly from the
upper surface of the thermoplastic sheet and wherein the number, spacing,
and size of the structures are predetermined based on head-impact
requirements;
cooling the headliner beneath the softening point of the molten resin; and
opening the mold and removing the headliner.
The '102 rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. '102(e) as anticipated
by Barber. We reverse.
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, all of the
elements of the claim must be found in one reference. Scripps Clinic & Research
Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir.
1991). Claims 17 and 25 both require a plurality of spaced energy-absorbing,
head-impact mechanisms. Each of the head-impact mechanisms includes a plurality of
spaced-apart, energy-absorbing thermoplastic structures which are integrally molded
and extend upwardly from an upper surface of the molded sheet. The Examiner relies
on Barber’s impact pads (13, 14 and 15) as the plurality of head-impact mechanisms.
However, these impact pads do not each have a plurality of spaced-apart,
energy-absorbing thermoplastic structures which are integrally molded and extend
upwardly from an upper surface of the molded sheet. The Examiner also acknowledges
that Barber does not teach the use of thermoplastic materials in the molding process
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007