Appeal 2007-1793
Application 10/911,196
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants Adoline et al. seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
final rejection of claims 27, 37, 39, 41, 43, 53, 55, and 57.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is to a spring system having a spring and
rod assembly that can be easily locked and unlocked (Specification 1:2-3). The
Appellants’ Specification explains that the spring system is useful for facilitating
the opening of closure members in motor vehicles and for opening and closing of
container lids in industrial applications (Specification 1:5-10). Claims 27 and 43,
reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal (some
paragraphing added).
27. A spring system comprising
a housing having an axis and an internal chamber
that includes axially opposite bottom and top ends,
a spring rod coaxial with said axis and at least
partially positioned within said internal chamber and
1 Claims 27-58 are pending. The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 28-36,
38, 42, 44-52, 54, 56, and 58 (Answer 2). The Examiner failed to articulate any
rejection of claim 40 in the Final Office Action (dated March 15, 2006) or in the
Answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013