Appeal No. 2006-0651
Application 10/050,061
difference between the claimed invention and the reference
disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field
of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech
Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
As indicated above, independent claim 5 defines each of the
isolators recited therein as being “configured to be tuned
independent of the other isolators.” Independent claim 10
recites the same limitation. In response to the appellant’s
ostensibly accurate observation (see pages 8-10 in the brief)
that Griffin does not describe any of the isolators contained in
the hexapod type suspension disclosed therein as configured to be
tuned, the examiner states that
Applicant's “Summary” on page 2 of the specification
refer[s] to Prior Art [i.e., the Cunningham patent]
which specifically discloses wherein the prior art
teaches wherein struts can be adjusted and decoupled
from each other by changing “strut” angles, stiffness,
damping, and the TMD mass properties. As disclosed by
Applicant, tuning struts is extremely well known in the
art as ANY damper is inherently tuned to the specific
requirements of the application for which it is used.
The inherent design of a strut construction would
result in “tuning” the strut to operate according to
desired characteristics. Griffin et al. clearly
discloses tuning in column 7, lines 17-29 and Column 1,
line 67-Column 2, line 9 [answer, page 5].
It is of no moment, however, that Cunningham discloses
isolators or struts which are configured to be tuned. The
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007