Appeal No. 2006-1014
Application No. 10/255,081
Appellants, made of the same material throughout so that the
high rigidity and low rigidity portions are made of the same
material. (Column 8, line 66 to column 9, line 2). Moreover,
Suzuki teaches that because a larger rigidity is required for
the curved end portions 10B and 10C, the edge ribs 13 are
arranged at a higher density than the lateral ribs 15 in this
embodiment. (Column 9, lines 51-55). Suzuki’s “larger
rigidity” in the edge ribs 13 is relative to the center lateral
ribs 15, which, comparatively, must be less rigid. Aside from
changing the density of the ribs to increase rigidity, Suzuki
(like Appellants) also teaches changing the thickness of the
ribs to adjust rigidity. (Column 9, lines 57-64). These
circumstances reveal that a high-rigidity portion (i.e., of
relatively large rigidity) and low-rigidity portion (i.e., of
relatively less rigidity) are formed in Suzuki’s Figure 1
embodiment. Moreover Suzuki teaches in this embodiment that the
ribs upon impact undergo buckling (i.e., ductile deformation)
and further destruction (i.e., brittle fracturing). (Column 9,
lines 62-64). These Suzuki teachings reinforce the Examiner’s
finding that Suzuki anticipates appealed claim 1.
Another relevant Suzuki embodiment is shown in Figure 5
which depicts a rib structure with cushioning material inserted
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007