Appeal No. 2004-0610 Page 5
Application No. 09/624,120
art to have utilized a valveless piston in the shock absorber of Wilke in view of Danek's
teaching of a shock absorber having a valveless piston as a mere elimination of a part
and its associated function.
The appellants argue throughout both briefs that the applied prior art does not
suggest modifying Wilke's shock absorber to utilize a valveless piston. We agree.
Wilke's piston 3 is provided with a piston check valve 15 which permits fluid to
flow from the second working chamber 12 through the piston check valve 15 and into
the first working chamber 11, but does not permit fluid to flow in the opposite direction.
The lower capped end 14 of the housing 2 includes an end check valve 16 which
permits fluid to flow from the reservoir 9 to the second working chamber 12, but does
not permit flow in the opposite direction. There is a first transfer passage 17 which
establishes fluid communication between the twin valve assembly 5 and the first
working chamber 11 via the conduit 10 defined between the inner 8 and the medial 7
cylinders. There is a second transfer passage 18 which allows fluid flow between the
twin valve assembly 5 and the second working chamber 12. A reservoir passage 19
provides for fluid flow from the twin valve assembly 5 to the reservoir 9. Wilke teaches
(column 5, lines 25-38) that:
In a compression, the increased pressure in the second working chamber
12 and the decreased pressure in the first working chamber 11 causes the fluid
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007