Appeal 2007-1218
Application 10/850,258
Claims 1-5, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Weitzenhof.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Weitzenhof in view of McGavern
Claims 7-10, 13, 21, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Pees.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pees in view of Gubitz.
ISSUES
The issues raised for our consideration are whether the examiner, by
preponderance of evidence, has established that the claimed invention lacks
novelty or is obvious under §§ 102 and 103.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Weitzenhof discloses an air spring for a motor vehicle. Weitzenhof is
concerned with the problem of high frequency vibrations and provides a
blocking mass on the air spring to damp out such vibrations. The examiner
refers us to the embodiment found in Figure 16. The Figure 16 embodiment
discloses two air springs joined at the center by a blocking mass 48, 34, 85.
Weitzenhof also discloses two pistons 10, that change the shape of the air
spring in response to loading and unloading due to vehicle bumps. In the
rejection, the Examiner refers to the blocking mass or a portion of the
blocking mass as the piston. We cannot agree with the Examiner’s
interpretation of the reference. We are in agreement with Appellant that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013