Appeal No. 2006-0651
Application 10/050,061
structure at a particular location to reduce vibrations at that
location. The appellant has failed to cogently point out,
however, and it is not evident, why the second ends of the
isolators resulting from the proposed combination of Griffin and
Gran are not so coupled, why these second ends are not capable of
such coupling, or why the coupling would not reduce vibrations at
the coupling location.
Hence, the combined teachings of Griffin and Gran warrant
the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the
subject matter recited in claims 9 and 14 and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9 and 14 as being
unpatentable over Griffin in view of Gran.
IV. Remand to the examiner
This application is remanded to the examiner pursuant to 37
CFR § 41.50(a)(1) for consideration of the following matters.
The conclusion that it would have been obvious to use the
particular isolators disclosed by either Cunningham or Gran in
the hexapod suspension disclosed by Griffin is reasonable on its
face and, as indicated above, has not been challenged by the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007