Appeal No. 2004-2154 Page 3
Application No. 10/067,049
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 15) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 14 and 16) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the rejection of claim 7 as being anticipated by Pradel. The issue
in dispute is whether Pradel discloses a damping device comprising “a vacuum throttle
which reduces flow from the equalizing space to the working space away from the
piston rod as said piston rod moves outward, thereby developing a negative pressure in
the working space away from the piston rod” as called for in claim 7. According to the
examiner (answer, pages 3 and 4), the vacuum throttle “can be readable as bottom
valve 4a in fig. 7, which reduces flow from the equalizing space to the working space
away from piston rod as said piston rod moves outward, thereby developing a negative
pressure in the working space away from piston rod.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007