Appeal No. 2006-0651
Application 10/050,061
Attention is directed to the brief (filed February 21, 2005) and answer (mailed
April 28, 2005) for the respective positions of the appellant and examiner regarding the
merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 5, 7, 10 and 12 as
being anticipated by Griffin
Griffin discloses a passive “virtual” skyhook isolation
system (shown generally in Figure 4) which is “used to isolate a
system or machine from the transfer of mechanical vibrations to
1 In the final rejection and answer, the examiner mistakenly designates
the statutory basis for the anticipation rejection of claims 5, 7, 10 and 12
as § 102(b) rather than § 102(e). Griffin, which has a patent date (November
13, 2001) less than one year prior to the filing date (January 15, 2002) of
the instant application, is not prior art with respect to the subject matter
on appeal under § 102(b), but is prior art under § 102(e). The examiner’s
oversight in this matter appears to have been inadvertent and does not
prejudiced the appellant to any meaningful degree.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007