Appeal No. 2006-1447 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/775,881
and the second chamber. Thus, although the term “closed” is used, we consider the
term “closed” as used by appellants to refer to a restriction of the fluid passage that
permits a specified amount of fluid flow between the first chamber and the second
chamber. In addition, we note that claim 1 does not recite that the aperture extends
through the membrane (as shown at 130 in appellants’ figure 4) but rather recites “the
membrane defining an aperture.”
Turning to Vermolen, we find that the reference (col. 1, lines 5-8) is directed to
“an assembly for variably adjusting
the damping characteristics of the shock absorber during the
compression and rebound strokes of the shock absorber piston."
As illustrated in figure 3, Vermolen discloses that restriction ring 80
engages upper valve body 76 and sandwiches shim disc 78
between valve body 76 and restriction ring 80 (col. 5, lines
11-13), and that shim disc defines a hole 106 at its inner side
(col. 5, lines 16 and 17). Vermolen further discloses (col. 5,
lines 20-23) that "[s]him disc 78 is located above
annular projection 96 and with annular
projection 96 defines a restriction 108 which
restricts the flow of fluid between apertures
92 and 94.” The size of restriction 108 is controlled by the
size of hole 106, the thickness of shim disc 78 and the fluid
pressure within chambers 110 and 112 (col. 5, lines 28-31).
Vermolen explains (col. 5, line 60 through col. 6, line 9) that
The increase in fluid
pressure within chamber 112 causes movement
of shim disc 78 towards annular projection 96
to reduce the size of restriction 108. This
reduction in the size of restriction 108
reduces the flow between upper working
chamber 42 and fluid reservoir 48 providing a
relatively stiff shock absorber 10. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007