Appeal No. 2000-1890
Application 08/828,297
pages 6-7]. With respect to claims 13-15, the examiner responds
that the broadly recited locations are met by Hinlein [id., pages
7-8].
With respect to claims 1-8, 10 and 12, we agree with the
position argued by the examiner. Since the various tabs in
Hinlein clearly have some mass, and since the tabs are designed
to be movable, we agree with the examiner that these tabs
constitute “mass balancing structures” as that term is broadly
defined. We also note that appellant’s own disclosure describes
that such tabs can be used as mass balancing structures. Thus,
any movement of the tabs in Hinlein will have the effect of
changing the mass balance of the suspension. We also agree with
the examiner that the fact that Hinlein has no mention of mass
balancing or resonance measurements is not relevant to the
product recited in claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a drive
suspension having configurable mass balancing structures. More
precisely, claim 1 attempts to define a product which has two
different states at two different times. Claim 1 also attempts
to define this product by the manner in which the product is
changed from its first state to its second state. We do not
think that the particular product of claim 1 can properly be
claimed by the manner in which the product attains one of its
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007