Appeal No. 96-0998
Application No. 08/180,288
7. Obviousness over Warner and Chapman
Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Warner in view of Chapman.
Examiner’s Answer at 9-10. The positions of the examiner and
Appellant are the same as discussed above in paragraph 4.
Examiner’s Answer at 9, lines 19-20; Appeal Brief at 11,
lines 1-6.
We sustain the rejection of Claims 4, 5, and 8 for the
reasons expressed above in paragraph 4.
We will not sustain the rejection of Claim 9 because there
is no suggestion in the cited art to use an anti-freeze solution
as a damping fluid instead of the damping fluid (air) used by
Warner. Column 4, lines 3-6. Warner achieves his air damping by
using an airtight seal. Warner states that the seal also serves
to protect the interior of the device from moisture. Column 5,
lines 8-37. Warner’s desire to protect the interior from
moisture would discourage use of a liquid such as the recited
anti-freeze solution. Moreover, no cited reference even mentions
anti-freeze solution.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of Claims 4, 5, and 8, but
not the rejection of Claim 9, over Warner and Chapman.
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007