Appeal No. 2004-1602
Application No. 09/954,766
appeal. See In re Huang, supra. As further noted by the examiner
(id.), the snubber of Rodriguez is mounted to a floor separate
from but adjacent to the arbor holding the coil and thus is “free-
standing.” It is noted that the snubber of Rodriguez is in the
same position as disclosed by appellants, i.e., it is not
“integral” with the coil and thus “free-standing” as defined by
appellants’ specification (specification, page 6, ll. 9-13). See
In re Morris, supra.
Appellants argue that the Exhibit 1 demonstration makes
apparent the additional functional benefits derived from the
structural features of the present invention (Brief, page 7). This
argument is not well taken since unexpected results are not
relevant to this rejection based on section 102(b). See In re
Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Furthermore, appellants have not established that the Exhibit 1
demonstration involves the same device as now claimed.
Other than reiterating the limitations of claims 2, 3, 6 and
10, appellants’ sole argument with respect to these dependent
claims is that there is no teaching in Rodriguez regarding the
length of the bellcrank arm 270, as required by claim 10 on appeal
(Brief, page 8). As correctly found by the examiner, one section
of the bellcrank arm 270 is “approximately” three times the length
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007