Appeal 2006-2022
Application 10/092,320
show that decoupler 38 is rectangular in cross-section and the ends of the
decoupler float freely within the partition assembly (28).
Because Hein’s decoupler and Yamamoto’s diaphragm are
functionally and structurally unrelated to one another, the Examiner’s
proposed combination appears to be based on hindsight. Even disregarding
this infirmity, we consider the Examiner’s proposal, to incorporate the free
floating ends of Hein’s decoupler into Yamamoto’s diaphragm portion of the
rubber membrane in the partition assembly, to be contrary to the express
teachings of Yamamoto. Yamamoto discloses that the “open end” (35) of
the diaphragm 34 is to be restrained to control the sliding movement thereof
(Yamamoto, col. 7, ll. 4-20). Moreover, Yamamoto further explains that
having the diaphragm’s “open end” restrained provides the added advantage
of reducing the noise caused by movement of the “open end” (Yamamoto,
col. 7, ll. 4-21).
The Examiner’s proposed modification would render Yamamoto’s
vibration-proof device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of precluding
the generation of abnormal sound in the device by restraining the diaphragm
free end, such that there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed
modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
We also find that the Examiner’s proposed modification would
change the principle of operation of Yamamoto’s vibration-proof device
such that the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the
claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 981, 123 USPQ 349,
352 (CCPA 1959). Yamamoto’s device functions by restraining the sliding
movement of the “open end” (35) of the diaphragm (34) (Figures 3 and 4).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007