Appeal No. 2002-0283
Application 09/328,918
vibration confinement device.
As a further issue, like appellant (brief, pages 7-8), we
find the examiner’s attack on the term “controllable” as used in
claim 34 on appeal, to be totally without merit.
In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the examiner’s
rejection of claims 12, 17, 20 through 24 and 29 through 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite will not
be sustained.
We next look to the examiner's rejection of claims 12 and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bendiksen. In
this instance, we are in full agreement with appellant’s
arguments as set forth on pages 8 and 9 of the brief. Bendiksen
does not address an apparatus for “confining vibrational energy”
as that terminology is used by appellant, or a vibration
confinement device mounted on a structure to purposefully confine
vibration to a specific region of the structure, as appellant
does. Regarding Figure 10 of Bendiksen pointed to by the
examiner, it appears that the examiner has taken this figure out
of context. After reading the Bendiksen publication, we agree
with appellant that this figure merely represents a theoretical
model of a tightly coupled structure like that described in the
latter part of the Bendiksen publication as being one possible
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007