Appeal No. 96-4149
Application 08/276,436
Appellant has provided no guidance whatsoever as to the
details of the apparatus with respect to these essential
details and no insights into how one would go about
determining them for a given mass to be restrained in response
to a given shock force. In addition, given the
specification’s silence as to any bending of the brackets
acting to achieve appellant’s desired result, the discussion
on page 2 of the brief regarding bending and temporary
distortion of the brackets only adds to the confusion. Given
the ambiguity of the disclosure concerning exactly how to
provide for "a dampening effect - much like the effect of a
spring, shock absorber, or the like" or "regulated dampening
effect" (specification, page 5), we find that one of ordinary
skill in the art would be unable to make and use the claimed
invention (method and apparatus) without undue
experimentation.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1 to 5 and 7 as being anticipated
by Horvath (rejection (1)) is reversed on the merits.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007