Appeal No. 2003-0203 Page 6
Application No. 09/419,136
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the appellants' disclosure
considered in light of the prior art would have enabled a person of ordinary skill in the
art to make and use the appellants' invention without undue experimentation. In our
view, the appellants' disclosure when considered in light of the teachings of the prior art
cited by the appellants would have enabled a person of ordinary skill in the art to make
and use the appellants' invention without undue experimentation for the following
reasons.
Claim 1 recites that the mesh diaphragm is coupled between the vehicle and the
wheel axle. Claim 1 does not recite that the mesh diaphragm is constructed so that it
alone adequately supports the wheel axle. Since claim 1 is written in an open format
due to the use of the term "comprising," the claimed mesh diaphragm can be used with
other elements to adequately support the wheel axle. The appellants disclosure
coupled with the disclosure of U.S. Patent No. 5,390,949 would have enabled a person
of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention defined by claim 1 without
undue experimentation since the appellants mesh diaphragm could be used with a leaf
spring in the same manner that piezoelectric elements are used with a leaf spring in
U.S. Patent No. 5,390,949.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007