Appeal No. 2006-1014
Application No. 10/255,081
teaches an impact-absorbing component having a low-rigidity
ductile fracture portion and a high-rigidity brittle fracture
portion. (Answer, pages 4-5). Suzuki further explains what is
shown in Figures 4 and 6 at column 12, lines 5-8, 19-22, 40-46,
wherein Suzuki describes that the rigidities of various portions
of the impact-absorbing component are manipulated. We find that
Suzuki’s teaching that the ribs undergo “buckling deformation”
indicates the occurrence of ductile deformation. Also, we agree
with the Examiner that Suzuki’s teaching that some of the ribs
are destroyed indicates the occurrence of brittle fracturing
(Answer, page 4 and Suzuki, column 12, lines 20-22).
Appellants state that Suzuki teaches, with respect to the
embodiment shown in Figure 4, that the holes or indentations 20A
and 20B are supplied to both the front ribs (12) and edge ribs
(13) to lower the rigidity of the ribs. (Brief, page 7).
Appellants then conclude that, since both sets of ribs have the
indentations, Suzuki contains no teaching that edge ribs (13)
and front ribs (12) have differing rigidities. (Brief, page 7).
However, Suzuki teaches as part of this embodiment that “some”
of the ribs may have the hole or indentations 20A and 20B.
(Column 12, lines 4-7). Since some of the ribs have the
rigidity lowering indentations, by necessary implication, some
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007