Appeal No. 2004-1553
Application No. 09/915,631
that plate 42 of the reference is in fact connected to
a frame . . . . [P]late 42, while not being directly
connected to the frame of the assembly (the frame being
the portion located directly below the engine mounts),
is indirectly connected to the frame at least through
the controller component 167 and engine mounts 162a and
162b or subsequently, indirectly connected through the
engine 161 and the engine mounts.
Therefore, since applicant has not claimed that
the second plate 42 is directly connected to a frame,
this limitation is met by Yamakado et al.
Concerning the “fixed relative to” limitations of
independent claim 19, the examiner takes the position (answer,
page 6)
that plate 41 of the reference is fixed, at least to
some extent, to the powertrain component 161. As
discussed in column 7[,] lines 11-15 of the reference,
at least through joint 13, the pendulum 1, in which
plate 41 is attached thereto, can only move in one
direction, therefore plate 41 is fixed, at least
somewhat, with respect to the powertrain equivalent
component 161, i.e., fixed in the directions/planes the
pendulum 1 is not allowed to move in.
Appellants argue (brief, pages 4-5) that the examiner is in
error in asserting that the second plate 42 of Yamakado is
“connected to” the frame of the vehicle and in asserting that the
first plate 41 of Yamakado is “fixed relative to” one of the
powertrain component or frame of the vehicle.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007