Appeal No. 2006-0521 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/453,147
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We initially note
that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper
to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.
In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
The examiner finds that Hedderly describes the invention as claimed except that
Hedderly does not describe a bulkhead comprised on aluminum alloy casting.
Specifically, the examiner finds:
Hedderly (6,517,145) discloses . . . a structural bulkhead
(structural upright partition) 10, the bulkhead comprising a
plurality of integrally formed attachment mounts 56,66, the
bulkhead comprising a first side for facing an engine
compartment of a motor vehicle and a second side for facing
a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle, attaching at
least one structural member 80 of the motor vehicle to the
bulkhead, the bulkhead supporting the at least one structural
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007