Appeal 2007-0470
Application 09/976,997
assembly” does not exclude post 16f that is coupled to the filler panel. Also,
the Examiner indicates that claim 1 does not recite that the locating element
is an integral part of the filler panel body assembly (Answer 6).
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Radloff fully meets the invention set forth in claims 1-3. We
also conclude that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
invention set forth in claims 4 and 6-8. Accordingly, we affirm.
ISSUES
(1) Have Appellants established that the Examiner erred in
interpreting post 16f in Radloff as reasonably corresponding to a locating
element coupled to a filler panel body as recited in independent claim 1?
(2) Have Appellants established that the disclosure of Radloff does
not anticipate the limitations of independent claim 1?
(3) Have Appellants rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness for claims 4 and 6-8?
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s findings regarding the
specific teachings of the cited references (Answer 3-5) are not in dispute
except with respect to the limitation of claim 1 calling for a keyed filler
panel assembly comprising a locating element coupled to the filler panel
body. See Br. 7-12. Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner’s factual
findings regarding the cited references to Radloff and Jones as they pertain
to the undisputed claim limitations.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013