Appeal 2007-0633
Application 10/132,844
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Feb. 22, 2006) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Dec.
01, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner maintains that
Arya teaches the claimed invention, but is silent as to specifically treating
the pockets after forming the pockets. We agree with the Examiner that
Arya does not contain a great discussion of the treating of the pockets, but
we also agree with the Examiner that Arya does discuss that any necessary
press forming operations may be performed at Column 3, lines 10-11 and
48-49. Additionally, we find that the discussion in the Background of the
Invention section discusses that prior art suspension shapes are typically
created by two-sided etching processes and supplemental forming
procedures to increase their stiffness. (Arya, col. 1, ll. 24-27.) We find this
teaching alone to be a sufficient express suggestion to treat the pockets after
etching to improve the stiffness of the suspension member for at least
independent claim 1. Yet, the Examiner relied upon the teachings of Fahey
to teach and suggest the combination of etching and coining of the at least
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013