Appeal No. 2000-1890
Application 08/828,297
and adjusting a mass balancing structure based on this
measurement. Since Hinlein has no teaching whatsoever related to
measuring the resonance characteristic of the suspension, we fail
to see how Hinlein can be said to teach the claimed measuring and
adjusting steps. The examiner simply dismisses the claim
limitations as being obvious to the artisan without any evidence
on this record to support that position. The examiner’s mere
opinion cannot substitute for evidence which is lacking in the
record. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 16, 19 and 21-24 based on Hinlein taken alone.
We now consider the rejection of claims 9, 11, 17 and 18
based on the teachings of Hinlein and Budde. Budde is cited to
meet the perforated punch-out structures of claim 9, the adhesive
of claim 11, and the steps of adding and removing mass as recited
in claims 17 and 18. Appellant argues that Budde does not
contain any teaching or suggestion of adjusting the mass
balancing structures to a second configuration in response to a
measurement representative of the resonance characteristic of the
suspension [brief, page 10]. The examiner responds that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to make appropriate changes in
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007