Appeal 2006-2612
Application 10/225,316
compression rate (force of compression). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that the claimed pressure equalizer reads on the perforated core and/or
facings of Landi that allow for the escape and ingress of air (fluid) upon
compression and expansion of the material (cushion) of Landi.
Regarding separately argued independent claim 21, Appellant’s
principal argument relates to the pressure equalizer feature thereof.
However, for reasons analogous to those discussed above, Appellant’s
contentions that the perforations of Landi would not function to limit
elastomeric response as called for in claim 21 is not persuasive. In
particular, and as noted above with regard to claim 1, claim 21 does not
specify a particular compression rate or pressure that the claimed pressure
equalizer is capable of equalizing without limiting the elastomeric response
of the elastomeric shell. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed
pressure equalizer reads on the perforated honeycomb shell and sheet facing
materials of Landi that provide for the egress of air during compression and
the return of air during the return of a honeycomb cell to an uncompressed
state.
Accordingly, we shall affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 1-4 and 21.
However, our disposition of the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 7-9 is another matter. In this regard, dependent claims 7 and 9
require that the pressure equalizer comprises a valve in a normally closed
position and claim 8 requires that that the shock isolator includes a column
of pressurized fluid that supports an object until a pressure change in the
fluid triggers the pressure equalizer. In addressing those claim features, the
Examiner maintains that the perforations of Landi act as a valve (claims 7
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007