Appeal No. 96-0998
Application No. 08/180,288
a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the
purpose of providing damping.
There is no mention in the cited references of using an
anti-freeze solution for damping or for any other purpose.
Tognola is concerned with elevated temperatures on the order of
800 degrees Fahrenheit and nowhere mentions freezing
temperatures. Column 4, lines 59-64. There is no suggestion in
the cited references to use an anti-freeze solution instead of
the damping fluid (air) used in Tognola. Column 3, lines 23-47.
Having no reference teaching or suggesting an anti-freeze
solution as a damping means, we cannot conclude that the subject
matter of Claim 9 would have been obvious.
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of Claims 4, 5, and 8,
but not the rejection of Claim 9.
5. Obviousness over Tognola and Valentini
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tognola in view of Valentini.
Examiner’s Answer at 8.
With respect to Claim 13, Appellant’s only argument is that
Valentini fails to overcome the argued deficiencies of Tognola
with respect to Claim 1 from which Claim 13 ultimately depends.
Appeal Brief at 9, line 23, through 10, line 10. We disagree.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007