Appeal 2007-2817
Application 11/049,176
Appellants, the Specification distinguishes the invention over conventional
subframes by stating “[b]ecause the side members 98, 100, cross members 102,
104, and mounting features on subframe 62 are all integral with one another, there
are no bolts, welds, or other fasteners required to build subframe 62” (Specification
¶ 32). Therefore, we find that the term “integral” as used within the context of the
Appellants’ Specification and the claims requires a unitary cast subframe having at
least first and second side members and first and second cross members.
Berckhan discloses a subframe of a wheel suspension for motor vehicles
having the lower ends of the rear support strut 25, 26 and of the forward support
struts 27, 28 welded, respectively, to the top of spaced rearward and forward
transverse box plates 23 and 24 (Findings of Fact 1-4). As such, Berckhan does
not disclose a unitary cast subframe where the first and second cross members are
integral with the first and second side members so as to form a unitary member as
claimed (Finding of Fact 9). As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 14, 15, 17, and 23 as anticipated by Berckhan.
Furthermore, neither Stewart nor Omundson discloses a unitary cast
subframe where the first and second cross members are integral with the first and
second side members so as to form a unitary member as claimed (Findings of Fact
5-9), and the Examiner has not provided any reasoning regarding whether it would
have been obvious to modify the art of record to include a unitary cast subframe.
As such, the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, and
we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 24, and 25 as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013