Appeal 2007-1714
Application 10/096,684
Claims 1-5, 9-13, 17-31, 33-35, and 37-55are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nomura in view of Renault.
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-5, 9-13, 17-31, 33-35, and 37-55 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nomura in view of Renault. The correctness of the above
rejections turns on whether either of the cited references disclose a lower impact
absorbing member supported by a protruding portion of a molded one-piece front
end module.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we make
reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings to be supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013