Appeal No. 2000-1890
Application 08/828,297
first configuration, these tabs could not be moved from their
bent configuration because that would release the electrical
leads. Finally, appellant argues that Hinlein cannot anticipate
these claims because Hinlein is silent as to measuring the
resonance characteristics of the load beam [brief, pages 5-6].
With respect to separately argued claims 13-15, appellant
additionally argues that there is no disclosure in Hinlein to
locate the tabs in relation to the second torsion node location
[id., page 6].
The examiner responds that the tabs of Hinlein can be
considered to be mass balancing structures as recited in claim 1.
The examiner also responds that the first and second
configurations can be read on an intermediate form of the product
and the final form of the product respectively. The examiner
finds that the foldable tabs of Hinlein meet the claimed first
and second configurations. The examiner notes that the claimed
recitation “in response to a measurement representative of a
resonance characteristic of the suspension to controllably adjust
the mass distribution of the load beam and the resonance
characteristic to a desired value” is not pertinent to the
rejection because the claimed invention is directed to the
product and not to a method performed on the product [answer,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007