Appeal No. 2006-0822
Application No. 10/054,253
examiner's answer (mailed July 7, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and to the appellant's brief (filed April 29, 2005) and reply
brief (filed September 9, 2005) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied Teeri and Rode patents,
and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the following determinations.
We turn our attention first to the anticipation rejection. The appellant has
not argued claims 24, 25 and 28 separately from claim 16. Therefore, in
accordance with 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have selected claim 16 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal on this rejection, with claims 24, 25 and
28 standing or falling therewith.
Claim 16 reads as follows.
16. An adjustable spring system comprising:
a plurality of beveled disc springs axially aligned
with an adjustable spacer;
wherein said adjustable spacer is plastically
compressible in a substantially axial direction relative to
said plurality of beveled disc springs.
Teeri discloses a Belleville disk spring pillar assembly comprising Belleville
springs 1 bound into one assembly with binding rings 2 at their outer rims and with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007