Appeal No. 2004-0516
Application No. 09/578,072
We observe on page 8 of appellant’s specification,
beginning at line 3, that air bladder 39, as depicted in
appellant’s Figure 3, is constructed of a material highly
resistant to deformation, having a cylindrical sidewall 40,
and a pair of opposing end walls 41, defined by gathering
of the sidewall 40, together at each end of the bladder, in
the form of gathered portion 42. This is a different
structure from what is disclosed in Gouirand ‘651. In
column 1, beginning at line 39, Gouirand ‘651 discloses a
compressed air casing 2, having an open bottom of which is
closed by a flexible diaphragm 3, forming a compressed air
chamber within the casing 2. The examiner does not explain
how the casing 2/diaphragm 3 combination can be the air
bladder 39 as recited in claim 1, as defined in light of
the specification as discussed herein.
Furthermore, the examiner states that the word “bladder” is
defined as “(1) something resembling a bladder; and (2) an
inflated, hollow structure”. Answer, page 5. Yet, as pointed
out by appellant on pages 1-2 of the reply brief, the
combination of a rigid housing 2 and diaphragm 3 of Gouirand
‘651 does not resemble a bladder because this combination does
not have flexible side walls. We agree.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 16.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and
12-16
On page 5 of brief, appellant argues that the function
of element 3 of Smith would have no benefit in VanDenberg.
We disagree for the reasons provided by the examiner on
pages 5-6 of the answer, which we incorporate herein as our
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007