Appeal No. 2005-2135 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/038,910
In light of the above, we shall sustain the rejection of claim 22 as being
anticipated by Corcoran. We shall also sustain the rejection of claims 33 and 35, which
appellants have not argued separately from claim 22.
We shall not sustain the rejection of claims 34, 43, 45 and 47-50 as being
anticipated by Corcoran, however. The examiner's insinuation (answer, page 7) that
plastic or metal bushing 16 is a sealing member is unsound.
We also cannot sustain the rejection of claim 42 as being unpatentable over
Corcoran in view of Muller. While Corcoran discloses that the combination of friction
damping with hysteresis damping makes the surface effect damper disclosed therein
better suited for a variety of applications, the particular examples cited therein, i.e.,
motor mounts, shock absorbers, vehicle engine dampers, helicopter strut dampers, etc.,
are so dissimilar from the application of furniture doors and drawers addressed by
Muller that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found no suggestion in Muller to
mount the damper of Corcoran to a piece of furniture as called for in claim 42.
STATEMENT PURSUANT T0 37 CFR § 41.50(c)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(c), we point out that the rejections of claims 22, 33
and 35 as being anticipated by either Smalley or Corcoran, sustained herein for the
reasons discussed above, may be overcome by amending independent claim 22 to
recite that the two pistons are arranged so as to be linearly displaceable relative to one
another in said fluid cylinder and by inserting "by said displacement of said one of said
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007