Appeal No. 97-0766 Page 5
Application No. 08/287,448
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claims 13 through 16
We do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 13
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Gebhardt. Likewise, we do not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gebhardt in view of Dillman.
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).
Gebhardt discloses a rotary vibration damper. As shown
in Figure 2, the rotary vibration damper includes a primary
member 1 formed as a flange screwed to a crank shaft (not
shown), a secondary member, and a resilient damping layer 3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007