Appeal 2006-3219
Application 10/122,270
encompassing all the specified portions. Indeed, a single bumper beam 16 of
Manning meets these claim requirements. Thus, we determine that one of
ordinary skill in this art would have combined the references on the basis of
the common structure and manufacture of the same kind of automotive part
for mechanical strength purposes.
We cannot agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have been led away from using woven tows for the mat in the
laminates of Yamada as taught by Manning because of the deleterious
effects of needling on the woven tows in the mat as taught by Drummond.
Indeed, Yamada teaches the steps to be taken so that fiber breakage and
strength loss is reduced, which steps are not taught by Drummond.
Appellant has not established by argument or evidence that the method of
Yamada would result in mats formed with woven tows which would not
provide sufficient mechanical strength to meet the objectives of the
references or any of the “high speed impact requirements” encompassed by
claim 14.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Yamada and Manning alone and as further combined
with Uytterhaeghe2 with Appellant’s countervailing evidence of and
argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 14, 15, 17 through 26, and 29 would have
been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2 Appellant does not advance contentions with respect to Uytterhaeghe and
accordingly, a discussion of this reference is not necessary to our decision.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013