Appeal No. 2006-0651
Application 10/050,061
anticipation rejection at hand rests on Griffin alone, and
Griffin simply does not teach isolators which are “configured to
be tuned” in the sense set forth in claims 5 and 10. The
examiner’s implication that any damper or isolator, including
those disclosed by Griffin, meets the “configured to be tuned”
limitations because it is inherently “tuned” as manufactured to
meet specific requirements and desired characteristics is not
well taken. Although an isolator arguably is inherently “tuned”
to function in a desired manner when made, this does not mean
that it is “configured to be tuned.” The appellant’s
specification (see pages 2 and 4) clearly sets forth the
difference between the two through its contrasting discussions of
a tuned mass damper which is adjusted at the factory by changing
springs or removing material from the oscillating mass based on
estimates of the frequency of the device to be damped (i.e., an
isolator which is “tuned”) and of a strut or isolator which can
be finely tuned by adjusting its respective spring constant and
mounting location on a particular structure to be damped (i.e.,
an isolator which is “configured to be tuned”).
Thus, Griffin does not disclose each and every element of
the subject matter recited in claims 5 and 10. Consequently, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007