Appeal No. 1999-1757 Page 9
Application No. 08/895,637
We have also carefully reviewed Kirchner and find no
disclosure of a second volume as called for in the appellants'
claim 1, nor any teaching or suggestion of producing a change
in spring rate by combining a first volume of compressible
liquid (which provides damping) and a second volume of
compressible liquid into one active volume. Even assuming
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
Kouda and Kirchner, the combination would not have yielded a
vibration control system with first and second volumes as
recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1, or of claims 3 through 5 and 7 through
17 which depend from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kouda in view of Kirchner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007