Appeal 2007-1490
Application 10/707,484
1 6. Applicants argue claims 12 and 14-21 together as a group (Br. 4-
2 6).
3 7. Applicants place much emphasis on the term “headliner” in its
4 claims and argue that Carroll does not disclose a headliner as follows:
5 To reiterate, Appellants are claiming a headliner. Carroll
6 et al., on the other hand does not disclose a headliner. Rather,
7 Carroll discloses an unfinished panel, which, according to
8 Carroll’s Claim 10, is intended to be attached to any, and used
9 in combination with a vast array of other structures, to form a
10 similarly vast array of other finished goods, one of which may
11 include a headliner … Carroll et al. is devoted not to a
12 headliner, but to a structure which could be buried, for example,
13 within the core of a headliner. … Although it is true that
14 Carroll et al. discloses an energy absorbing assembly, this alone
15 does not mean that Carroll et al. discloses a headliner for a
16 vehicle. A headliner, as noted in Appellants’ specification at
17 paragraph 3, includes a device mounted inside the passenger
18 compartment of a vehicle for providing an aesthetic covering
19 for the roof’s sheet metal and/or framework upon which the
20 headliner is to be mounted. Carroll et al. shows something that
21 could be used within a headliner but does not disclose a
22 finished headliner, nor does Carroll et al. disclose any
23 completed structure for a headliner. (Br. 5).
24
25 8. The Examiner responded and concluded that the term “headliner”
26 recited in the preamble of claim 12 is not limiting to that claim and that
27 Carroll describes all of the structural components of claims 12 and 14-21,
28 citing Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-packard Co, 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51
29 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Answer 5-6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013