Appeal No. 97-1840 Page 14
Application No. 08/316,685
on Andrä in the same manner as set forth above with respect to
parent claim 1. Additionally, we agree with the examiner that
it is appropriate to consider Andrä's flange ring 5, hub ring
1 and inertia ring 2 as multiple axially spaced concentric
rings with separators (i.e., outer ring 3 and inner ring 4)
therebetween.
Second, claim 3 reads on Andrä's damping element (i.e.,
outer ring 3, flange ring 5 and inner ring 4) since it extends
from the top of the hub ring 1 to the bottom of the inertial
ring 2. This is shown when viewing Andrä's Figure 2 and
rotating the figure 90°.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
Claims 4, 9 through 11, 13 through 16 and 19
Claims 4, 9 through 11, 13 through 16 and 19 have not
been separately argued by the appellant. Accordingly, these
claims will be treated as falling with claim 1. See In re
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007