Appeal No. 1997-3089 Page 7
Application No. 08/577,839
teaching of damping vibration from yet another reference, i.e.,
choosing bits and pieces from various references, and then
haphazardly throwing together these pieces, using appellants’
disclosure as a blueprint, in order to arrive at the instant
claimed subject matter. For these reasons, we find the
examiner’s combination to be untenable even in view of the
great breadth of independent claim 1.
Similarly, with regard to independent claim 5, the claim
calls for a conductive loop through which flux passes and
generating a current in the loop when a first flux occurs so as
to generate a second flux which opposes the change in the first
flux. Again, we find no teaching or suggestion in the applied
references of these limitations.
Simpson was applied, in combination with Persson, King and
Allegre, with regard to dependent claims 7 and 13 through 15
but we find nothing in Simpson which would supply the
deficiencies noted supra regarding independent claims 1 and 5.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6 through 10, 12,
13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We reach a different result with regard to independent
claim 3. In our view, this claim is so broad as to read on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007