Appeal 2006-3219
Application 10/122,270
skin, not for attaching to an automotive vehicle” (Br. 6). Appellant further
contends the “combination of Yamada and Manning [differ] in that the
claimed invention discloses a pair of attachment portions (28) having
fixation points or holes (26) sufficiently located within both of the woven
mats so that the part meets high speed impact requirements” (id. 7).
Appellant contends Yamada does not teach this claim limitation as
“disclosed, for example, in the Specification . . . at page 2 line 26 through
page 3 line 16” (id.). Appellant contends the claim limitation “‘so that the
part meets high speed impact requirements”’ acts to further limit the location
of the points or holes within the woven mats” and is thus, of patentable
significance and not merely intended use (id.)
Appellant contends Yamada “teaches away” from using a woven mat
by the use of needling to “join the fiber mat and a layer of arranged (i.e.,
unidirectional) fibers” and Manning “teaches away from using woven mats
continuously extending between attachment portions to link the attachment
points” (Br. 8, citing Yamada col. 2, ll. 55-59, and col. 4, ll. 24-42; original
emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds the claim limitation “automotive part is
'adapted to be attached to an automotive vehicle at a pair of attachment
locations spaced a predetermined distance apart'” does not limit the
“attachment potion” with respect to attachment to an automotive vehicle
(Answer 9).
The issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under § 103(a) over
the combined teachings of Yamada and Manning.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013