Appeal 2007-1367
Application 10/703,596
Examiner, as well as the entirety of the reference disclosure, teach the
calculation and compensation for vibrations emanating from the tire/wheel
assembly, suspension system, vehicle body, etc.
In our view, the Examiner has set forth the requisite factual basis for
the conclusion that Sugai reasonably appears to disclose an apparatus or
system that is fully capable of controlling and reducing the vibrations that
are uncomfortable to the driver of the vehicle resulting from the driver’s use
of the accelerator, steering column, and braking system. Appellants, on the
other hand, have failed to point to any particular structural distinction
between apparatus within the broad scope of the appealed claims and
apparatus fairly described by Sugai.
Appellants’ separate arguments for the dependent claims have been
adequately addressed by the Examiner. For instance, regarding the claim 7
recitation that the compensator reduces the displacement of a head position
of a passenger, we agree with the Examiner that the apparatus of Sugai,
which objective is to reduce the unpleasant vibrations felt by the driver,
would necessarily also reduce the displacement of a passenger’s head
position.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013