Appeal No. 2002-1392
Application No. 09/390,996
parallel to a vertical axis because of compression of the rubber
bushings, Lipps fails to meet each and every element of the
claims. Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1, 8, 12, and 25 through 27.
As to claims 9, 13, 14, and 22, the examiner combines
McShane with Lipps. However, McShane fails to cure the
deficiencies of Lipps. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 9, 13, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner combines Furtado with Lipps to reject claims 21
and 23. Similar to McShane, Furtado fails to overcome the
shortcomings of Lipps. Therefore, we will not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 21 and 23.
Ward, which the examiner combines with Lipps to reject claim
24, also fails to overcome the above-noted deficiencies of Lipps.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007