Appeal No. 95-4486 Page 7
Application No. 08/158,713
14 and the flexible rubber diaphragm 28, there is formed a fluid-
tight space filled with a suitable electro-viscous fluid 30.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-10) that claim 6 is not
anticipated by Kato. We agree. Kato does not disclose each
element of claim 6. Kato does not disclose an integral fluid
tight damping chamber which is sealed prior to its assembly in
position adjacent Kato's elastic body 14. Kato also does not
disclose a bottom resiliently deformable compliance member.
Contrary to the position of the examiner (answer, p. 4), it is
our opinion that claimed bottom resiliently deformable compliance
member is not readable on Kato's metal member 20.
The obviousness issues
We will not sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 7
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007