Appeal No. 2006-0937
Application No. 10/367,289
details regarding this appealed subject matter are set forth in
representative claim 1, the sole independent claim before us,
which reads as follows:
1. A motor vehicle impact absorbing beam,
characterized in that, at least along a major part of
its length, the beam comprises two flanks (13, 14) and
has a cross-sectional form which is catenary in
configuration, corresponding substantially to the form
of a free-hanging chain suspended at its ends only, and
a central portion (36) disposed between the two flanks
(13, 14).
The reference set forth below is relied upon by the examiner
in the § 102 rejection before us: 3
Odan et al. (Odan) 5,865,496 Feb. 2, 1999
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Odan. 4
3As a matter of clarification, a prior rejection under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been implicitly withdrawn
by the examiner as reflected by the record as a whole and
especially by the supplemental examiner’s answer mailed October
31, 2005 which presents only the § 102 rejection as applicable to
the appealed claims (see pages 2 and 3 thereof).
4The appealed claims will stand or fall together (e.g., see
page 5 of the brief filed March 22, 2004). Accordingly, in
assessing the merits of the rejection before us, we will focus on
claim 1 which is the sole independent claim on appeal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007