Appeal No. 1999-0008
Application No. 08/625,834
This difference has been previously acknowledged by
the Examiner, however, appellants have still not shown
unobvious or unexpected results by having this
mechanical decoupling. Lacking this showing, it is
maintained that this feature is not considered to be a
patentable difference over the art of record.
We disagree with the position taken by the examiner. It is
the burden of the examiner to establish a prima facie case by
showing the claimed features in the prior art, or by a logical
line of reasoning. The examiner has not met this burden.
Moreover, we also agree with appellants that, brief at page
5,
Miyamoto does not teach or suggest a casing having a
first chassis affixed thereto and portions extending
within the casing and spaced apart from the casing,
and a second chassis floatingly supported by the first
chassis via dampers.
The examiner has not identified what the examiner considers
as a first chassis and a second chassis in a casing, and how the
second chassis is connected to the first chassis via dampers.
Odawara does show dampers, such as 73 in Figures 2 and 8, which
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007