Appeal No. 1999-1757 Page 2
Application No. 08/895,637
The appellants' invention relates to a vibration control
system and specifically relates to the use of a liquid spring
in a variety of environments (specification, p. 1). A copy of
the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the
appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Kirchner 4,079,923 Mar. 21, 1978
Kouda et al. (Kouda) 4,826,205 May 2, 1989
Claims 1, 3 through 5 and 7 through 17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kouda in
view of Kirchner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the rejection (Paper No. 23,
mailed October 15, 1997), the final rejection (Paper No. 26,
mailed May 14, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 30, mailed
February 2, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 29,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007