Appeal No. 97-1037
Application 08/467,869
skill in the art, from a combined assessment of the applied prior
art, to vulcanize a rubber layer between the metal plates of a
constraint type of vibration damper such as that taught by Niwa
(Figure 2). From our perspective, the incentive on the part of
one having ordinary skill in the art for making this modification
would have simply been to obtain the expected benefit of this
alternative practice of rubber vulcanization, a practice well
known in the vibration damping device art, as revealed by the
British document. As explained above, Niwa would have been
suggestive of a thinner damping layer, as claimed. As to the
recitation in claim 1 of the rubber layer being a “sheet that is
formed and subsequently” vulcanized, we note that the patent-
ability of an article does not depend on its method of produc-
tion. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966
(Fed. Cir. 1985). While in the final article (insert), as
claimed, it does not appear that the initial sheet form of the
rubber layer would be discernible, we do recognize that the Niwa
disclosure is nevertheless suggestive of applying rubber in sheet
form, as pointed out, supra. For these reasons, we affirm the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007