Appeal No. 2006-3181
Application No. 10/253,442
the illustration in Cox’s Figure 3 unambiguously shows no direct
connection between the shell and the carrier structure, let alone
an interconnection over the whole length of the top and bottom
walls of the shell as claimed.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Cox, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
independent claims 12 and 14, nor of claims 13, 15, and 20
dependent thereon.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 16-19 based on separate
combinations of Cox with Bader and Husby, we do not sustain this
rejection as well. The Bader and Husby references have been
added to Cox by the Examiner to address, respectively, the folded
sheet metal and acceleration sensor features set forth in
dependent claims 16-19. We find nothing, however, in the
disclosures of Bader or Husby, taken individually or
collectively, which would overcome the innate deficiencies of Cox
discussed supra.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013