Appeal No. 1999-1757 Page 5
Application No. 08/895,637
Control unit 100 also operates the pneumatic spring assembly
between soft spring mode and hard spring mode (column 10,
lines 20-53).
The examiner's final rejection (Paper No. 26) is
explained by reference to the previous office action wherein
it is stated that
Kouda et al. show the vibration control system
as claimed except for the type of shock
absorbing medium... [and] [i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have utilized a compressible liquid in the
system of Kouda et al such as shown by Kirchner
so as to provide damping and spring action
(Paper No. 23, page 3).
The examiner additionally expresses the view that
[t]he summary of invention contained in the
brief is deficient because contrary to
Applicant's description there is only one volume
of fluid separated by a valve. The discussion
of two volumes is but a matter of nomenclature
for claim recitation purposes. As clearly shown
in the figures, there is but one volume of fluid
(emphasis ours) (answer, page 2).
The appellants challenge the examiner's position by
arguing that whereas Kouda discloses a variable damping shock
absorber, and a separate springing device, by contrast, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007