Appeal No. 2005-2633 Page 7
Application No. 10/254,376
not teach the molding of a headliner with energy absorbing structures. (Answer, pp.
5-6). The Examiner asserts that Klobucar and Wandyez teach that headliners for a
vehicle roof can be formed by gas-assisted injection molding. The formed headliner
may include hollow rib sections for structural integrity. (Id.) The Examiner recognizes
combination does not set forth using the voids or hollow sections as head impact
mechanisms as currently claimed. However, the Examiner asserts that the head impact
mechanisms are a recitation of the intended use of the produced part.
The portions of the Keller reference identified by the Examiner for describing the
features of the claimed invention are incorrect. While the reference discloses the
production of molded parts having hollow rib voids, the reference does not disclose that
the ribs could function as a compressible head impact mechanism. To the contrary,
Keller discloses the ribs are present to provide structural support. (Col. 5, ll. 51-56). If
these components were compressible as suggested by the Examiner the stated
intended purpose for structural integrity would be defeated. The remaining references
cited in the rejection do not describe head impact mechanisms. Accordingly, we agree
with Appellants, Brief pages 7-9, that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of the claimed subject matter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007