Appeal 2006-3100
Application 10/662,547
1 Claim 7 under appeal reads as follows:
2 7. A two-stage shock absorber comprising:
3 a pressure tube defining a chamber;
4 a piston rod assembly disposed within said chamber;
5 a valve assembly fixably attached to said piston rod assembly
6 and slidably engaging said pressure tube within said chamber, said
7 valve assembly dividing said chamber into an upper and a lower
8 working chamber, said valve assembly providing a first and a second
9 fluid flow path between said upper and lower working chambers
10 completely through said valve assembly, said first and second flow
11 paths of said valve assembly being totally separate from one another;
12 and
13 a sleeve slidably disposed on said piston rod assembly, said
14 piston rod assembly defining a passage and a plurality of holes
15 through said piston rod assembly, the plurality of holes being arranged
16 in a helical spiral formation to create a third separate and distinct flow
17 path extending between said upper and lower working chambers, said
18 sleeve being operable to progressively close said third flow path by
19 sequentially covering said plurality of holes when movement of said
20 piston rod assembly exceeds a specified distance, said progressive
21 closing of said third flow path providing a progressively higher
22 resistance to the movement of said piston rod assembly, said sleeve
23 being operable to simultaneously cover all of said plurality of holes to
24 fully close said third flow path.
25
26 The Examiner rejected claims 7 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
27 being unpatentable over DeMolina in view of Lee and Dressell.
28 The Examiner rejected claims 12 to 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
29 as being unpatentable over DeMolina in view of Dressell or Schupner.
30 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
31 appeal are:
32 Schupner US 4,071,122 Jan. 31, 1978
33 Dressell, Jr. US 4,133,415 Jan. 9, 1979
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013