Appeal No. 97-1037
Application 08/467,869
We turn now to the applied prior art.
Niwa informs us (column 1, lines 14 through 62, and
column 3, lines 9 through 15, and lines 54 through 63) that,
prior to appellant’s invention, it was known to effect a con-
straint type of vibration damper (Figures 2 and 23), effective as
the noise-preventing-material for disc brakes (column 7, lines 54
through 56). As shown in Figure 2, this form of damper can
comprise metal sheets 1 and 4 with a rubber layer 2 and resin
film (hot melt adhesive) 3 therebetween (Figure 2), while as
depicted in Figure 23 this form of damper can also comprise a
viscoelastic polymeric layer 2 bonded between two steel sheets 1.
The patentee reveals that a constraint type of damper is effec-
tive with a thin viscoelastic layer (column 1, lines 33 and 34).
More specifically, it is clear to us from Niwa’s teaching of
relative thicknesses (column 5, lines 33 through 39) that even
considering the maximum values of the disclosed thickness ranges,
the intermediate layer 2 (0.5 mm) and film 3 (0.1 mm) are taught
to be thinner (0.6 mm total) than each metal sheet 1, 4 (1.0 mm).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007