Appeal No. 2002-0283
Application 09/328,918
solution to the mode localization problem in large space
structures addressed by the author. The mass and springs shown
in Figure 10 representationally model a larger structure with
strong coupling strength between the substructures of the large
periodic structure and are not in any way equivalent to or
anticapatory of the vibration confinement device of the present
invention.
In contrast to appellant’s invention wherein a vibration
confinement device is attached to a structure to confine
vibrations to a specifically defined and limited area of the
structure (i.e., the vibration confinement region of the
structure), the goal in Bendiksen is to avoid localization or
concentration of the vibrations in a structure at any specific
portion or local region thereof and to attain a vibration
response that approaches that of the ideal shown in the upper
portion of Figure 11.
It follows that we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 12 and 31 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Bendiksen.
The last of the examiner’s rejections for our consideration
is that of claims 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 29 through 31 and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Walkowe. Each of the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007