Appeal No. 1997-0726 Page 6
Application No. 08/329,398
The claimed invention differs [from Shtarkman] only in
the type of viscous material [contained within the sealed
member 34].
The examiner then found that Eberhard discloses
a mount of the type claimed which utilizes a fluid as the
viscous material.
The examiner then determined that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have utilized a fluid in the damper of
Shtarkman in view of the teaching of Eberhard et al. as a
substitute of known equivalents dependent on the desired
damping rate.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 5,) that the examiner's
finding that the recited upper compliance member was readable
on Shtarkman's inner casing wall 30 was erroneous.
Specifically, the appellants assert that a compliance member
must be "resilient" and that Shtarkman's inner casing wall 30
is not resilient as taught by the appellants' specification at
pages 6 and 8.
The examiner responded to this argument (answer, p. 4)
by stating that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007