Appeal No. 2005-1125 5
Application No. 10/144,328
In the second approach, the examiner implicitly concedes
that McCormick does not respond to the claim limitations in
question and turns to Fotino to overcome this deficiency (see
page 3 in the final rejection).
Fotino discloses a piston-cylinder assembly similar in many
respects to that disclosed by McCormick. One of the differences
between the two resides in Fotino’s jounce bumper and bellows
being formed as a one piece, integrally molded subassembly. In
one embodiment, the subassembly also includes a collar at the
opposite end of the bellows from the jounce bumper for securement
to the cylinder.
In proposing to combine McCormick and Fotino to reject claim
1, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to
have modified the sheath tube, resilient stop pad, and end cap
components of McCormick et al. to have been preassembled, as
taught by Fotino et al., in order to provide a subassembly that
facilitates manufacturing of the suspension spring system” (final
rejection, page 3). This conclusion is unsound because Fotino
does not actually teach or suggest preassembly of the bellows and
bumper disclosed therein. Fotino’s disclosure of the manufacture
of these elements as a one piece, integrally formed subassembly
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007