Appeal 2007-2817
Application 11/049,176
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 14, 15, 17, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Berckhan.
2. Claims 2, 3, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stewart and Berckhan.
3. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Berckhan and Omundson.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that (1) Berckhan fails to disclose “first and second cross
members integral with said first and second side members so as to form a unitary
member” (Appeal Br. 4) and “a strut rod having a first end coupled to said
subframe and a second end coupled to a vehicle frame” (Appeal Br. 7), and (2)
“there is no suggestion or motivation to combine the teachings of Stewart and
Berckhan” (Appeal Br. 10). The Examiner found that the side members 29-30 of
Berckhan, once welded to the two cross members 23-24, form a unitary member,
as claimed (Answer 3), and the torsion rod 61 is equivalent to the claimed strut rod
(Answer 5). The issues before us are whether the terms “integral” and “unitary
member” include members which are welded and whether a torsion rod is
equivalent to a strut rod.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013