Appeal No. 95-4486 Page 6
Application No. 08/158,713
The anticipation issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 6 is drawn to an elastomeric vehicle mount comprising,
inter alia, a top resiliently deformable compliance member, a
bottom resiliently deformable compliance member, and an integral
fluid tight damping chamber which is sealed prior to its assembly
in position adjacent one of the compliance members.
Kato discloses an engine mount. As shown in Figure 1, the
engine mount includes an annular elastic body 14, a metal member
20, a flexible rubber diaphragm 28, and a protective rubber layer
31. Between the protective rubber layer 31 of the elastic body
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007