Appeal 2007-1714
Application 10/096,684
While it may appear obvious in hindsight to support the lower impact
absorbing member of Renault with the protruding portion of the one-piece front
end module of Nomura, we see no reason from the prior art relied upon by the
Examiner why one having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the vehicle
front end of Nomura to include the features of Renault absent the Appellants’
teaching to do so. The Examiner thus erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 13,
21, and 35 as obvious over Nomura in view of Renault. We also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 9-12, 17-20, 22-31, 33-34, and 37-
55, because these claim rejections rely upon the underlying rejection of
independent claim 1, 13, 21, or 35. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USQP2d
1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is nonobvious).
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that 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).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013