Appeal No. 2004-0516
Application No. 09/578,072
own. Indeed, benefits (1) and (2) discussed by the
examiner would provide benefits to the structure of
VanDenberg for the reasons given by the examiner.
We therefore affirm this rejection.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 7 and 8
On page 6 of brief, appellant argues that there is no
suggestion that any particular mounting feature shown in
Gouirand ‘325 would have any benefit in VanDenberg.
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner argues that the
teaching of Gouirand ‘325, namely, securing a bladder to a
support plate by bolting or bonding, would provide benefit
because securing the bladder using bolts or bonding would
insure that the bladder will be fixed in the proper
position relative to the suspension beam in the vehicle
frame. We agree with the examiner.
We therefore affirm this rejection.
IV. 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10 and 11
On page 6 of brief, appellant argues that the examiner
proposes no suggestions as to why the structure set forth
in Higby would be beneficial in the structure of
VanDenberg. On page 3 of the reply brief, appellant states
that the examiner’s rejection is based entirely on
hindsight.
We find that the bladders of VanDenberg are not
structurally similar to the casing 14 of Higby. In fact,
we find that cups 17 and 18 are not entirely within the
casing 14 as required by claim 10 and claim 11. Therefore
incorporation of the structure of Higby into the structure
of VanDenberg would not suggest the claimed invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007