Appeal No. 97-1840 Page 13
Application No. 08/316,685
inertial ring 2 , and (3) is expandable due to the elastomeric
nature of the outer ring 3 and inner ring 4 (see claims 9 and
10 of Andrä).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
Claims 2 and 3
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 3, the appellant
argues (brief, p. 10) that Andrä lacks (1) the multiple axial
spaced concentric rings with separators therebetween as
recited in claim 2, and (2) an expandable separator extending
from the top of one of the rings to the bottom of the adjacent
ring as recited in claim 3.
We find these arguments to be unpersuasive for the
following reasons.
First, claim 2 is readable on a device having only two
rings and one separator therebetween. As such claim 2 reads
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007