Appeal No. 2002-0283
Application 09/328,918
To summarize our decision, we note that a) the examiner's
rejections of claims 12, 17, 20 through 24 and 29 through 38
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the basis of both
written description and lack of enablement have not been
sustained; b) the examiner's rejection of claims 12, 17, 20
through 24 and 29 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has likewise not been sustained; c) the examiner’s
rejection of claims 12 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Bendiksen has not been sustained; and d) the rejection of claims
12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 29 through 31 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Walkowe has not been sustained.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
accordingly REVERSED.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we also enter the
following new ground of rejection against claims 32 and 33 on
appeal.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellant
regards as the invention. In particular, we observe that
independent claim 32 sets forth a vibration confinement device
which includes both an effective translational spring constant
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007