Appeal 2006-3100
Application 10/662,547
1 ISSUES
2 The first issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
3 erred in finding that Lee and Dressell disclose or suggest a sleeve operable
4 to progressively close the third flow path by sequentially covering the
5 plurality of holes in the piston rod assembly and being operable to
6 simultaneously cover all of the plurality of holes.
7 The second issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner
8 erred in finding that Lee and Schupner disclose a sleeve slidably disposed
9 on a piston rod assembly, a hole located at the base of a groove and the
10 sleeve operable to close a third flow path by progressively covering the
11 groove from the hole to the terminal end.
12
13 FINDINGS OF FACT
14 Appellant discloses a piston rod assembly 46 that includes a first flow
15 path 54, a second flow path 56 and a third flow path 74. The third flow path
16 74 extends from a first chamber 20 through an opening in the piston rod 18
17 through the piston rod and through a plurality of helical holes 86 into a
18 second chamber 22 (Figure 2). A sliding sleeve 78 is provided that
19 is operable to move along the piston rod to progressively close more and
20 more of the holes 86 in sequence. This gradual closing of the passage
21 provides the advantage of a major reduction or elimination of the switching
22 noise typical with a dual-stage damping device (Specification, p.7).
23 Lee discloses a shock absorber having a piston assembly 14 which
24 slides within a chamber 100 bound by a sleeve 18. The sleeve 18 has a
25 plurality of holes 34. As the piston moves in the chamber 100 from a first
26 position depicted in Figure 1 to a position depicted in Figure 2, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013