Appeal No. 2005-2135 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/038,910
For the reasons discussed above, appellants' arguments do not persuade us of
any error on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 22 as being anticipated by
Smalley. The rejection of claim 22, as well as claim 332 which appellants have not
argued separately apart from claim 22, is sustained.
The rejection of claims 34, 35, 43, 45 and 47-50 as being anticipated by Smalley
is reversed. With respect to claim 34, there is no indication in Smalley that bushing 22
is a seal which seals with the wall of the housing (cylinder) 6, as called for in claim 34.
With respect to claim 35, Smalley lacks a solid body made of rubber elastic material that
connects the two pistons. Specifically, the two washers 18, 19a are separated not by a
solid body but by three distinct bodies (the two polyurethane bushings 21, 22 and
washer-like load transfer element 10), none of which is made of rubber elastic material.
With respect to claim 43, and claims 45 and 47-50 depending from claim 43, there is no
indication in Smalley that there is any fluid damping.
We also shall not sustain the rejection of claim 42 as being unpatentable over
Smalley in view of Muller. Simply stated, we agree with appellants (brief, page 8) that
2 It is not clear why claim 33, which depends from claim 32, withdrawn from consideration, was
not also withdrawn from consideration, but that issue is not within our jurisdiction.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007