Appeal No. 1999-2003
Application No. 08/751,545
internal enclosure during the following tests." Further,
Brissier shows in Figure 2 that the enclosure is deformed but
still in tact after impact. Thus, Brissier appears to be
contrary to the limitation recited in claim 4 and, therefore,
fails to teach the limitation. Accordingly, we cannot sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 4.
The examiner (Final Rejection, page 4, and Answer, page 7)
states that Schmitz's teaching of damping structural resonances
equates to claim 7's recitation of reducing the resonant
frequency. Appellants argue (Brief, page 11, and Reply Brief,
page 5) that Schmitz teaches using a high resonant frequency or
addressing the amplitude of the resonance. We agree that Schmitz
fails to disclose reducing the resonant frequency. Consequently
we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 7.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007