Appeal No. 2005-2135 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/038,910
Muller's teaching with regard to the use of friction-based braking and damping elements
with furniture/cabinets, especially drawers and furniture/cabinet drawers, provides no
suggestion whatsoever to mount the vehicle hitch of Smalley on a piece of furniture.
The rejections based on Corcoran
With respect to claim 22, appellants argue that Corcoran's washers 22 cannot be
considered pistons, because they are part of a single device (washers 22 and piston 12)
that forms a piston (brief, page 10). We, like appellants, observe that Corcoran refers to
element 12 as a piston and elements 22 as washers and, further, that washers 22 move
in unison with piston 12. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, anticipation does not
require disclosure of the claim limitations in haec verba. Bode, 550 F.2d at 660, 193
USPQ at 16. Furthermore, there is no requirement in claim 22 that the pistons be
moveable relative to one another. As such, we find no error in the examiner's position
that the washers 22 of Corcoran respond to the pistons of claim 22.
Appellants' argument on pages 10-11 of the brief that the polymeric sleeve 14
forms part of the piston itself and thus is not a separate sealing member squeezed
between two pistons is likewise not well taken. While the sleeve 14 forms part of the
structure which Corcoran refers to as a "piston," it is a separate element distinct from
the washers 22, which respond structurally to the pistons recited in claim 22.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007