Appeal 2006-3219
Application 10/122,270
which a bumper beam 16 is present in each module of modular pairs 12,14
that are centrally joined, and each module is secured to the vehicle
(Manning, e.g., col. 1, ll. 5-15, col. 2, ll. 45-57, col. 2, l. 65, to col. 3, l. 2,
col. 3, ll. 65-66, col. 6, ll. 25-39, and Figs. 1-3, 8, 10, and 11). One of
ordinary skill in this art would have found from Manning’s Figs. 1 and 3 that
each beam 16 has two holes in vertical wall portion 18 for attachment to
bracket portion 26 of bracket member 24 which is mounted to the vehicle,
wherein the two holes are spaced a predetermined distance apart (id., col. 3,
l. 65, to col. 4, l. 26). Manning discloses that for advantageous weight and
strength purposes, the bumper beam is a laminate of fiberglass reinforced
plastic material which can be thermosetting resin impregnated fiberglass
having, inter alia, core elements C of linear and parallel roving elements R
and “overlaying outer layers M1 and M2 [which] are of a mat or woven
construction” as illustrated in Manning’s Fig. 8 (id., col. 6, ll. 42-66).
We determine the combined teachings of Yamada and Manning, the
scope of which we determined above, provide convincing evidence
supporting the Examiner’s case that the claimed invention encompassed by
claim 14, as we interpreted this claim above, would have been prima facie
obviousness of to one of ordinary skill in the molding arts familiar with the
mechanical strength requirements for bumper beams for vehicles. Contrary
to Appellant’s contentions, both Yamada and Manning disclose bumper
beams having all of the portions specified in claim 14, including the pair of
attachment positions spaced a predetermined distance apart and containing
holes, wherein all of the portions are made from laminates that include mats
which extend from one end of the bumper beam to the other, thus
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013