Appeal No. 2004-2354
Application No. 09/923,991 Page 9
Jordan (column 2, line 46) teaches that the fluid employed can
be a liquid of “any desired viscosity.” Jordan (column 2, lines
46-48) further states:
[i]t can be water, oil or other suitable liquid or
gel. If a very high viscosity, semifluid substance is
used, the form [sic., foam] filling may be dispensed
with.
Based on that disclosure of Jordan, the examiner has
reasonably determined that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use fluids having a viscosity within
the claimed range as it is within the ambit of one skilled in the
art to determine the optimum or workable range of fluid
viscosities that are suitable for the shock absorbing device of
Jordan. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
(CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the
optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Appellant argues that the option of dispensing with the foam
filling when using very high viscosity fluids as disclosed in
Jordan teaches against using a matrix (foam) within the
enclosure. We disagree. The referred to portion of the Jordan
disclosure, which is reproduced above, merely provides the option
of forming an enclosure without using foam therewithin. Of
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007