Appeal 2007-2061
Application 10/319,429
be viewed as or function as the claimed exterior automotive vehicle body
surface.
The § 103 rejection of claim 6 over Lutz in view of Fukahori cannot
stand because Fukahori’s teaching of an insulating material for vehicle roofs
does not remedy the basic deficiency of Lutz discussed above.
We will sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection over Kralik, as well as
the § 103 rejections using Kralik as a primary reference, for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein. Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that Kralik, like Appellant,
teaches a vehicle roof part comprising an outer skin, a honeycomb spacer,
and a glass fiber reinforcing layer. Appellant also does not dispute the
Examiner’s factual finding that Kralik discloses an adhesive which
permeates into the cellular structure of the honeycomb spacer. Rather, it is
Appellant’s contention that Kralik does not disclose “a plastic layer that fills
a space between an outer skin and a reinforcing layer” (principal Br. 8-9).
However, we fully agree with the Examiner that the appealed claims do not
require that the plastic entirely fills the space between the outer skin and the
reinforcing layer. While Appellant stresses that claim 24 on appeal
specifically recites “filling the space between the inner side of the firm outer
skin and the reinforcing layer,” Appellant seems to overlook the preceding
recitation in claim 24 which states that “the spacer being at least partially
penetrated by the plastic of the plastic layer.” Manifestly, when claim 24 is
read in its entirety, it is quite clear that the plastic layer is considered to fill
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013