Ex Parte Soucy - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-0294                                                        
          Application No. 09/953,030                                                  

                              an enclosure containing a gel-like material;            
                              and                                                     
          a bladder disposed within the enclosure, the                                
          bladder at least partially surrounded by and                                
          in contact with the gel-like material;                                      
          disposing a work piece on the fixture; and                                  
               adjusting the apparatus to vary contact between the                    
               apparatus and at least a portion of one of the work piece              
               and the fixture to change a frequency characteristics [sic]            
               thereof.                                                               
                                                                                     
               The examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence           
          of obviousness:                                                             
          Thomas et al. (Thomas)           6,049,927          Apr. 18, 2000           
               Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an apparatus              
          and method for dampening vibrations.  The apparatus comprises an            
          enclosure containing a gel-like material and a bladder, with the            
          bladder at least partially surrounded by and in contact with the            
          gel-like material.                                                          
               Appealed claims 1-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.             
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas.                                 
               We have carefully reviewed the respective positions advanced           
          by appellant and the examiner.  In so doing, we find ourselves              
          in agreement with appellant that the examiner has failed                    
          to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed              

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007