Appeal No. 2000-0565
Application No. 08/539,840
air cylinder. Consequently, Carroll does not provide the controlled and smooth movement
inherent in a gas spring.
We agree with the appellant in this regard. While the adjustment assembly of Carroll
does comprise a gas cylinder, the trapped air cylinder disclosed therein is not a "gas spring" as
that term would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated
by the appellant.
Moreover, as Carroll's gas cylinder is formed by the seat post, it cannot reasonably be
considered to be "operated in conjunction with a conventional seat post" or "substantially
bearing with said conventional seat post" as required by claim 1. Likewise, Carroll lacks a step
of "inserting said conventional seat post into said seat tube until said conventional seat post
substantially bears upon said first half of said gas spring" as recited in claim 11.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 11
as being anticipated by Carroll.
The obviousness rejection
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2-10 and 12-18 rests in part on the examiner's finding
that Carroll discloses a gas spring disposed in bearing relationship with a conventional seat post. The
above-discussed lack of support in Carroll for this finding fatally taints the examiner's conclusion that
the differences between the subject matter recited in claims 2-10 and 12-18 and the assembly of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007