Appeal 2006-2612
Application 10/225,316
Appellant expresses disagreement with the Examiner’s anticipation
determination based on the claim 1 requirement for a pressure equalizer.
Appellant (Br., 10) asserts that the perforations/openings in the core (and/or
facing material) of Landi would not release fluid at a sufficiently rapid rate
during compression and allow fluid entry during expansion in a manner so
as to prevent a fluid pressure differential forming across the sidewalls such
that an elastomeric response of the shock isolator would be inhibited. We
are not persuaded by this argument.
In this regard, representative claim 1 is not restricted to a pressure
equalizer that is capable of preventing a pressure differential forming when
the shock isolator is exposed to a particularly high rate of compression or
expansion. Nor is the pressure equalizer of representative claim 1 required
to possess a specified high fluid flow capacity. Rather, all that
representative claim 1 requires is that the pressure equalizer is capable of
venting fluid form the cavity during a compression, including even a slowly
applied and/or small compression, and is capable of allowing fluid to enter
the cavity during a return to an uncompressed condition in a manner such
that the build up of an elastomeric response inhibiting fluid pressure
differential can be avoided.
Appellant refers to col. 4, ll. 44-47 of Landi in the Reply Brief as
suggesting a different type of fluid flow (throttling) than that required by
Appellant’s claimed device. We disagree because that portion of the Landi
disclosure merely recites one option for the perforation sizes and, even if
that option for hole sizes were selected, representative claim 1 would read
thereon because the inhibition of an elastomeric response by a fluid pressure
differential, as referred to in claim 1, is not tied into any particular
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007