Appeal No. 2006-1877
Application 10/434,931
since appellant has not provided any response on the record to the examiner’s position.1
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 is sustained.
Regarding the rejection of claims 7 and 8 based on Harrington,
the examiner indicates on page 5 of the answer that the ADR of
Harrington includes a plurality of spring members (68, 69) which
each form a joint having a center of rotation, and that those
respective centers of rotation cooperate to form an overall center
of rotation for the ADR. We agree, noting again that appellant has
not provided any response on the record to the examiner’s position,
and has definitely not explained why the springs (68, 69) in the ADR
of Harrington do not each broadly provide a joint having a center of
rotation, and why those respective centers of rotation would not
cooperate to form an overall center of rotation for the ADR. We
again direct attention to page 4 of the answer for the examiner’s
position on the “center of rotation” issue. Thus, the rejection of
claims 7 and 8 is also sustained.
1During any further prosecution of this application, the
examiner should consider whether a rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first and/or second paragraphs, would be
appropriate.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007