Appeal No. 1999-1757 Page 3
Application No. 08/895,637
filed October 9, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 31, filed
April 5, 1999) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner.2 For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain
the examiner's rejection.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, reads as follows:
1. A vibration control system for use between a first mass
and a second mass said system comprising:
(a) a liquid spring operably interposed between said first
and second masses,
2 In our review of the appellants' specification we note that element "252" in
the drawing is referred to as an "interior chamber" (page 7), a "position
sensor" (page 10), a "cylindrical rod" (page 10) and a "sensor rod" (page 34).
A reference character should refer to a part by use of one name, not different
names. This matter should be addressed by the appellants and/or the examiner
during any further prosecution.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007