Appeal No. 1999-1757 Page 6
Application No. 08/895,637
single suspension of the appellants' claim 1 controls spring
and damping forces by means of a compressible fluid (brief,
page 6). Also,
Kouda's shock absorber relies on the
incompressibility of a single volume liquid to
produce the damping force. Accordingly,
replacing the fluid in Kouda with a compressible
liquid will not yield the Applicants' invention
since multiple volumes are not contemplated by
Kouda. Applicants' invention utilizes two
volumes of compressible liquid which can be
combined or separately used by one single
suspension. By combining the two volumes into
one active volume, a change in springing and
damping is produced as recited in claim 1
(emphasis ours) (brief, page 7).
It is our opinion that the examiner's statement that
"Kouda et al. show the vibration control system as claimed
except for the type of shock absorbing medium" does not
reflect an appreciation of the appellants' claimed "liquid
spring" which, as recited in claim 1, provides variable
damping by causing compressible liquid to flow about a
restriction and, in conjunction with control means, provides a
variable spring rate by combining a second volume of
compressible liquid with the first volume. One of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that Kouda does not teach or
suggest a liquid spring. Kouda discloses a pneumatic spring
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007