Appeal No. 2006-0937
Application No. 10/367,289
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellant and the examiner, we refer to the several briefs
and answers which have been presented in the record of this
appeal.
OPINION
We will sustain this rejection for the reasons set forth in
the supplemental examiner’s answer mailed October 31, 2005 and
for the reasons set forth below.
We agree with examiner’s finding that appealed independent
claim 1 is anticipated by Figure 1 of Odan which displays a motor
vehicle impact absorbing beam or impact bar 11 comprising an
inner base 11b.
The appellant argues that the examiner’s § 102 rejection is
improper because it “addresses only one of the three components
[which comprise Odan’s impact bar], namely 11b” (supplemental
reply brief, filed October 3, 2005, page 5). This argument is
not well-taken. The independent claim on appeal is directed
toward a motor vehicle impact absorbing beam and recites that
“the beam comprises two flanks . . . and a central portion . . .
disposed between the two flanks.” The appellant’s argument lacks
persuasive merit because the claim term “comprises” does not
exclude the other components (i.e., 11a and 11c) of patentee’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007