Appeal 2006-3057
Application 10/426,905
1 The Examiner contends (Final Rejection 2) that when attached, the
2 panels of Rashid are unitary and one-piece. The Examiner identifies bottom
3 edge 26 of outer panel 12 of Rashid as meeting the claimed crease or bend.
4 With regard to claim 17, the Examiner relies upon Salmonowicz for a
5 suggestion of making the panels out of plastic.
6
7 We reverse.
8 ISSUE
9 Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in holding that
10 Rashid anticipates claims 1-16 and 31? The issue turns on whether Rashid's
11 panels, once attached, can be considered to be a "unitary, one-piece"
12 structure, and whether bottom edge 26 of Rashid meets the claimed bent or
13 creased portion. With respect to claim 17, the issue is whether Salmonowicz
14 makes up for the deficiencies of Rashid.
15
16 FINDINGS OF FACT
17 1. Appellant invented a vehicle door characterized by a unitary, one-
18 piece panel that forms an inner panel and an outer panel.
19 (Specification 1).
20 2. The panel is folded or bent so that the inner panel portion and the
21 outer panel portion at least partially define a cavity therebetween.
22 (id.).
23 3. Inner panel portion 14 and outer panel portion 18 are separated by
24 a crease 16. (Specification 9).
25 4. Rashid describes a vehicle door 10 including an outer panel 12, a
26 reinforcement panel 14, an inner panel 16, an inner cover 18 as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013