Appeal No. 2005-2135 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/038,910
The rejections based on Beyene
The rejection of claims 22, 33-35, 43, 45 and 47-50 as being anticipated by
Beyene will not be sustained. For the reasons articulated by appellants on page 12 of
the brief, the subject matter of these claims is not anticipated by Beyene. As explained
by appellants, tube 22 cannot be considered the fluid cylinder recited in appellants’
claims because top end plate 26, relied on by the examiner as one of the two recited
pistons, would not be linearly displaceable in the fluid cylinder as required by the claims,
as end plate 26 is fixed with respect to tube 22. On the other hand, considering bottom
tube 32 to be the fluid cylinder, spring elements 50A, relied on by the examiner as the
recited elastically deformable sealing member, are not pressed against the wall of tube
32 and thus would not meet the claimed limitation that the deformable sealing member
be pressed against the cylinder wall.
The examiner’s application of Muller does nothing to make up for the deficiencies
of Beyene discussed above. It follows that the rejection of claim 42 as being
unpatentable over Beyene in view of Muller also cannot be sustained.
The rejections based on Smalley
With respect to claim 22, appellants argue that Smalley lacks a fluid cylinder and
that, thus, washers 18, 19a are not pistons and bushing 21 is a damping member and
not a sealing member. Specifically, as explained on page 5 of their brief, appellants
urge that a fluid cylinder is “a cylindrical body or space that forms a chamber in which a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007