Appeal 2006-3219
Application 10/122,270
unpatentable over Yamada and Manning further in view of Uytterhaeghe
(Answer 3-7).
Appellant argues the claims in the first ground of rejection as a group
(Br. 4-8). With respect to the second ground of rejection, Appellant relies
on the same arguments advanced with respect to the first ground (id. 8).
Thus, we decide this appeal based on claim 14. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006).
The Examiner contends Yamada discloses an automotive part molded
from a plurality of layers including “two layers having tows of fibers
commingled with thermoplastic resin material” having sections
corresponding to the claimed automotive part “portions.” The sections are
formed from blanks of thermoplastic reinforced fibers including the layers
having tows of fibers which extend continuously between the “attachment
portions” having holes. The Examiner contends the disclosed part meets
high speed standard requirements (Answer 3-4, citing Yamada cols. 2, 5, and
6, and Figs. 1-3). The Examiner contends Yamada’s part differs from the
claimed part in that the tows of the reinforced fibers are not woven (id. 4).
The Examiner contends Manning discloses an automotive “bumper system
comprising outer and inner layers of woven fiberglass . . . able to withstand
the required . . . collision impact loads” (id., citing Manning col. 6). The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
this art to use “tows that are woven . . . to withstand the required . . .
collision impact loads” as taught by Manning (id.).
Appellant contends Yamada fails to teach or suggest the claimed
automotive part requiring “each of the woven mats continuously extends
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013