Appeal 2007-0633
Application 10/132,844
We find that Appellant’s arguments relate to plural pockets and
coining rather than the express language of independent claim 1. Here, we
find that the language of independent claim 1 merely requires a single etched
section of a suspension member that is treated. There need not be a teaching
of processing plural defined “pockets” which have been etched and coined in
a specific manner to achieve Appellant’s DISCLOSED invention.
Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the teachings of Fahey, Appellant argues that the
coining is limited to the head lifting tab and cannot be reasonably read as
encompassing other portions of the suspension (Br. 12-14). We find this
argument to go beyond the scope of the claim language since only one
pocket need be treated in independent claim 1. Therefore, Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive. Appellant argues there is no teaching or
suggestion for “coin etched pockets” in the combination (Br. 13). We find
this argument to go beyond the scope of the claim language since only one
pocket need be treated in independent claim 1. Therefore, Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the limitation “treating said one or more pockets
to minimize pocket depth tolerances and introduce hardness and strength
into surface areas of said one or more pockets” is more than a statement of
desired result and that the limitation breathes life and meaning into the
claims and must be given patentable weight as an integral part of the recited
physical action. (Br. 14). Appellant opines that the treating step could refer
to virtually anything without the language “to minimize . . .” including
“painting them [pockets] red” (Br. 14). We are unsure what Appellant is
arguing in this portion of the Brief. We agree with Appellant that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013