Appeal 2007-1490
Application 10/707,484
1 9. The following description is found in the background section of
2 Applicants’ Specification: “Various conventional headliner designs and
3 their associated methods of manufacture are known and disclosed, for
4 example, …. 2002/0017805 to Carroll, III …” (10/707,484 para. 9).
5 10. Applicants’ argue that claim 11 is patentable for the similar
6 arguments advanced in connection with claims 12 and 14-21 and further
7 argues that:
8 Moreover, Carroll et al. does not teach a structure which is
9 vacuum formed and has independent top and bottom layers
10 joined together to form an integral headliner. Moreover, the
11 Examiner has not adduced any evidence to support a conclusion
12 of obviousness. For this reason, as well as for the previously
13 cited reasons, Carroll et al. cannot comprise a colorable basis
14 for the rejection of Applicants’ Claim 11. (Br. 7).
15
16 D. Principles of Law
17 Claim interpretation is a question of law, but the subordinate findings
18 relating to proper claim construction are issues of fact. Claim elements must
19 be construed as they would be understood by those skilled in the art. See
20 Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. B.P. Chems., Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578, 38
21 USPQ2d 1126, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
22 E. Analysis
23 Claim 12 is in independent form and claims 14-21 depend either
24 directly or indirectly on claim 12. Claim 12 recites the term “headliner” in
25 the preamble and again in the body of the claim. The Examiner concluded
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013