Appeal No. 96-2670
Application 08/232,677
Claims 1 through 8, 12 through 25 and 29 through 34 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bartholomaus.
Reference is made to the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 7) and to the examiner’s
final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 5 and 8) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection.3
Bartholomaus discloses a vehicle vibration damping system having a “failsafe”
feature for preventing dangerous driving conditions should certain of its components
fail. The system includes a cylinder 10 connected to the vehicle body and a piston 12,
14 connected to a vehicle wheel. The piston divides the cylinder into two chambers 18,
19 which communicate with a pressure medium pump 29 and a pressure medium tank
through an arrangement of flow lines and a regulating valve 25. An electronic device
33 controls the position of the valve to regulate the damping characteristics of the
system. The “failsafe” feature involves a valve 22 which places the cylinder chambers
18, 19 in fluid communication with one another upon failure of the pump and/or
electronic control device to ensure that the system retains a certain degree of stability.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
3The official version of the final rejection which appears in the record as Paper
No. 5 consists only of a cover sheet (Form PTOL-326). A copy of the full version of this
action which was mailed to the appellant is appended to the brief (Paper No. 7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007