Appeal No. 2002-0605 Page 5
Application No. 09/096,542
reduction in modulus of elasticity with no sacrifice in yield strength; or (2) modified the
coil compression springs 3 of Eshelman's bumper system to be made from Nitinol
based on the above-noted teaching of Hochstein.
In this case, when all the evidence before us is considered, we find ourselves in
agreement with the appellants position as set forth in the brief and reply brief that the
claimed subject matter is not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, we fail
to find any reason in the teachings of the applied prior art why it would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have modified either Snaith or Eshelman to be an impact absorber having at least one
Nitinol member disposed to bend in flexural mode and having high specific damping
capacity of up to about 40%. In our view, applying Hochstein's teachings to either
Snaith or Eshelman as set forth in the rejections under appeal would destroy the
intended functioning of those devices. That is, the devices of Snaith and Eshelman
would no longer act as a spring having a low damping capacity but would act as an
impact absorber having a high specific damping capacity.
Since the subject matter of the claims under appeal is not suggested by the
applied prior art when all the evidence before us is considered for the reasons set forth
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007