Appeal 2006-3219
Application 10/122,270
between the attachment portions (28) to link attachment portions (28), as
illustrated in representative [Specification] Figure 6” (Br. 4-5; original
emphasis omitted). Appellant contends “Yamada teaches a swirled fiber mat
disposed adjacent to reinforcing fibers and joined to the reinforcing fibers by
needling” (id. 5, citing Yamada claims 1, 9, and 14, and col. 4, ll. 24-39;
original emphasis omitted). Appellant contends Drummond, cited by
Yamada, discloses that “when a mat is needled, continuous strands are
broken up by the needles of the needled into a plurality of short and long
fibers” which does not result in “a woven mat made of tows that contain
woven fibers” as claimed in claim 14 and illustrated in Specification Fig. 6
(id. 5-6, citing Drummond col. 6, ll. 49-55, and Yamada, col. 4, ll. 32-39;
original emphasis omitted).
Appellant contends Manning does not cure the deficiencies of Yamda
since Manning discloses a “modular design” bumper system with “two
substantially identical, laterally extending members . . . secured at the
laterally innermost ends to define an integrated bumper device (10)” (Br. 6,
citing Manning Abstract and Fig. 1). Appellant contends, on this basis, that
Manning does not “teach or suggest woven mats continuously extending
between the attachment portions to link the attachment portions,” and thus,
the combination does not teach this claim limitation (id. 6-7; original
emphasis omitted).
Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in this art considering
the claim language and the disclosure in the Specification would not
consider “holes (18) of Yamada [Fig. 2] equivalent to the attachment
portions (28) of claim 14 as the holes (18) of Yamada are for fitting a rim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013