Appeal No. 2006-0135
Application 10/271,656
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
have made the determination that the examiner’s above-noted rejections under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
The examiner’s basic position concerning the rejection of claims 1 through 10, 20, 25
and 26 is set forth on pages 3-5 of the answer. Essentially, the examiner is of the view that
Emmons discloses a drive train support (24), seen best in Figures 4-6, comprising a pair of
vertically oriented, elongated support members (80) configured for attachment to a bulkhead
of a motor vehicle (shown schematically as element 23 in Fig. 3, and consisting of cowl
beam (68), firewall (48) and upper rails (38) as shown in Figs 4-5). The support members
(80) are attached to the vehicle bulkhead at their upper ends via struts (70, 72, 73) and are
connected at their rear lower ends to a cross member or cross car beam (82) that is in turn
attached to the bulkhead at connection points (90). The front lower ends of the elongated
support members (80) are also interconnected by a lateral strut (82).
The examiner concedes that Emmons does not show any details as to how the
power train assembly is to be attached to the suspension and drive train support (24) and
does not mention if the power train assembly is attached in a cantilevered fashion, as
required in the claims on appeal. To address these deficiencies the examiner looks to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007