Ex Parte Maurer et al - Page 6

            Appeal 2007-0269                                                                                 
            Application 10/799,095                                                                           

        1   Reply Brief2.  We agree.  In our view, it would not have been obvious to one of                  
        2   ordinary skill to have used plastic in the invention of Brockenbrough.  The                      
        3   Examiner states as a possible motivation providing less expensive, lighter, and                  
        4   easier to manufacture material for the energy absorber.  However, Brockenbrough                  
        5   is very specific about the requirement for a high strength steel with specific                   
        6   minimum yield strength and minimum elongation (Brockenbrough, col. 3, ll. 26-                    
        7   27).  It is unclear from the Welygan patent whether plastic would be suitable in                 
        8   providing the requisite yield strength and ductility necessary in the side guard                 
        9   beam in a vehicle door.  There is no reasonable expectation of success that any of               
       10   the plastic or extrudable materials disclosed in Welygan could perform the function              
       11   of a high strength steel beam in Brockenbrough.  The results of substituting plastic             
       12   for the steel beams would not have been predictable, nor is this a matter of a simple            
       13   substitution of one known substance for another that yields predictable results.                 
       14          Additionally, it appears that the sizes of the rib extrusions in Welygan,                 
       15   which are listed as up to 26 mm, is another indication that the materials of                     
       16   Welygan would not be suitable as a door guard beam.  (Welygan col. 8, l. 5).  A rib              
       17   extrusion that can only be made up to 26 mm is apparently too small.  There is no                
       18   indication in Welygan that these ribs could be scaled-up or the extrusion process                
                                                                                                             
            2  Appellants make this argument in a section of the Reply Brief entitled “Differing             
            Compositions.”  It is unclear whether this argument is meant to apply only to                    
            claims 9, 17, and 23, and the claims that depend therefrom, or to all claims on                  
            appeal.  At some portions of page 8, Appellants appear to be applying this                       
            argument to all the appealed claims.  In spite of this lack of clarity on the part of            
            the Appellants, we will treat this argument as an argument respecting all the                    
            appealed claims.                                                                                 

                                                      6                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013