Appeal No. 95-4486 Page 8
Application No. 08/158,713
The examiner rejected dependent claims 7, 8 and 11 based
upon the combined teachings of Kato and Hoying. The examiner
rejected dependent claims 9 and 10 based upon the combined
teachings of Kato, Hoying and Schubert.
We have reviewed the references to Hoying and Schubert but
find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies of Kato
discussed above regarding claim 6. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed claims 7 through 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner rejected independent claim 12 based upon the
combined teachings of Kato and Hoying.
Claim 12 is drawn to a fluid-damped resilient mounting
device comprising, inter alia, at least one resiliently
deformable member and a fluid-tight module which is sealed prior
to its assembly against the resiliently deformable member.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 11) that claim 12 is
patentable since neither Kato nor Hoying discloses a fluid-tight
module which is sealed prior to its assembly against the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007