Appeal 2007-1714
Application 10/096,684
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that 1) Nomura teaches a vehicle front end, which is a
molded one-piece front end module having a radiator core support; and 2) Renault
teaches a front bumper including a top absorber and a bottom absorber, which can
be added to the vehicle front end of Nomura to improve shock absorber against a
frontal impact from the front of the vehicle (Answer 9). However, the Examiner
fails to address why one of skill in the art at the time the invention was made would
have found it obvious to support the lower impact absorbing member of Renault
with the protruding portion of Nomura. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78
USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness”).
In fact, the prior art of record provides no reason to modify Renault in the
manner suggested by the Examiner (Findings of Fact 2 and 4). Renault teaches
supporting the lower impact absorbing member with an under-engine fairing
section member, in important part to avoid potential loading of the side rails of the
vehicle during a collision with a pedestrian (Finding of Fact 3). It is not clear how
replacing the section member of Renault with the protruding portion of Nomura
would maintain that important feature nor meet the substantial vertical spacing
between the upper impact absorbing member and lower impact absorbing member
described in Renault (Finding of Fact 3).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013