Appeal No. 96-0998
Application No. 08/180,288
4. Obviousness over Tognola and Chapman
Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tognola in view of Chapman.
Examiner’s Answer at 7-8. Claim 8 recites damping means, Claims
4 and 5 recite fluid damping means, and Claim 9 specifies that
the damping means is an anti-freeze solution.
Appellant’s only challenge to the rejection of Claims 4, 5,
and 8 is that they depend from Claim 1 and Chapman does not
overcome the argued deficiencies of Claim 1's rejection. Appeal
Brief at 9, lines 1-21.
Chapman suggests that a continuous flux signal be compared
against a predetermined value to indicate when an acceleration
exceeds a certain threshold. Column 4, lines 9-32. Such a
predetermined value corresponds to the predetermined “impact”
level argued by appellant.
In any event, the subject matter of Claim 1 was suggested by
the cited art with or without Chapman. Thus, the rejection of
Claims 4, 5, and 8 will be sustained.
With respect to Claim 9, Appellant argues that Chapman makes
no suggestion of using anti-freeze solution as the damping means.
Appeal Brief at 9, lines 1-8. The examiner contends that the
particular solution was only one of numerous dampening solutions
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007