Appeal No. 2004-2354
Application No. 09/923,991 Page 10
course, the normal meaning of the term “may” in describing that
option would have also suggested the alternative option of
employing the foam with very high viscosity fluid in the
enclosure to one of ordinary skill in the art. On this record,
we shall sustain the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 4
and 23.
§ 103(a) Rejection of claims 2 and 3 over Jordan and Courtney
In addition to the features of claim 1 discussed above,
dependent claim 2 requires that the fluid within the claimed
enclosure includes macrosphere particles of a diameter of between
about 0.5 mm and 5.0 mm therein. While Jordan does disclose
using various fluids including very high viscosity fluids, such
as gels, as discussed above, Jordan does not explicitly mention
adding particles to the fluid used as recognized by the examiner.
Like Jordan, Courtney (page 17, lines 1-11) discloses a
shock absorbing device that can be used in a vehicle bumper to
absorb the energy of an impact with another object. To aid that
energy absorbing property, Courtney teaches that the fluid
(liquid, grease or jelly) should contain small (millimeter size)
capsules to enhance the energy absorbing properties of the shock
absorbing device containing the fluid. See, e.g., pages 1-5 of
Courtney. Based on those teachings of Courtney in combination
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007