Appeal No. 2005-2633 Page 8
Application No. 10/254,376
Claims 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. '103(a) as obvious over Berger in
view of Barber.3 We reverse.
The Examiner asserts that Berger teaches an injection molding process but fails
to teach molding permanently deformable ribs, or energy absorbing head impact
mechanisms. The Examiner relies on Barber for teaching the differences between the
claimed invention and Berger. (Answer, pp.7-9).
As we indicated above, Barber’s impact pads do not each have a plurality of
spaced-apart, energy-absorbing thermoplastic structures that are integrally molded and
extend upwardly from an upper surface of the molded sheet as required by claim 25.
As such, the combination of Barber and Berger does not render obvious the subject
matter of claim 25 within the meaning of '103.
3 We will limit our discussion to claim 25. Claims 26 and 27 depend on claim 25.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007