Appeal 2006-2612
Application 10/225,316
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Landi. Claims 5, 6 and 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Landi.
OPINION
Based on our review of the evidence of record and the respective
positions of Appellant and the Examiner as furnished in the Briefs and the
Answer, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-4 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
for essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer as well as those reasons
set forth below. However, we reverse the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
claims 7-9; and we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
5, 6, and 10-16 essentially for the reasons stated in the Briefs, as further
noted below.
We start with the § 102 rejection of claims 1-4 and 21.
Appellant argues claims 1-4 as a group. Thus, we select claim 1 as
representative of this group of commonly rejected claims. The Examiner
has found that Landi describes a structure, useful as a shock isolator, that
includes elastomeric side walls defining a cavity, a first base member
secured to a base end thereof to encapsulate a cavity within the side walls,
and a pressure equalizer, as required by representative claim 1. See the
Answer at page and the referred to portions of Landi. The Examiner has
reasonably determined that the side walls of Landi have first and second
base ends centrally positioned with respect to each other such that “a line
parallel to said central axis and extending through said first base end does
not extend through said second base end and vice versa,” as required by
appealed claim 1. See pages 4 and 8 of the Answer and the sections of Landi
referred to by the Examiner. Based on those factual determinations of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007