Appeal No. 2006-0651
Application 10/050,061
vibrations at that location. The appellant has failed to
cogently explain, however, and it is not apparent, why the second
ends of the isolators resulting from the proposed combination of
Griffin and Cunningham are not so coupled, why these second ends
are not capable of such coupling, or why the coupling would not
reduce vibrations at the coupling location.
Thus, the combined teachings of Griffin and Cunningham
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter recited in claims 8 and 13 and the prior art
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8 and 13 as being
unpatentable over Griffin in view of Cunningham.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9 and 14 as being
unpatentable over Griffin in view of Gran
Conceding that Griffin does not meet the limitations in
claim 9, or the corresponding limitations in claim 14 (which
depends from claim 10), requiring each isolator to comprise a
tubular damping strut and first and second spherical pivots, the
examiner looks to Gran.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007