Appeal No. 2004-1922 Page 7
Application No. 09/760,567
activating and deactivating it. It is our view, as stated above, that no suggestion exists
for combining Allsop and Schwarting in the manner proposed by the examiner, a
conclusion that also applies to claim 19. This being the case, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 19-22.
(3)
Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, adds the requirement that the shock-
absorbing member be a molded spring made of polyurethane, which is not taught by
Allsop or Schwarting. The examiner added Palinkas to the other two references for its
teaching of such a spring, but Palinkas does not alleviate the problems in combining
Allsop and Schwarting, and we therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 8.
CONCLUSION
None of the three rejections is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007