Appeal No. 97-1037
Application 08/467,869
ment’s disclosure. The passage quoted from the Niwa reference
(main brief, page 11), read in the context of the overall patent,
simply indicates that when a greater damping capacity is desired
the single thin damping layer of Figure 2 should not be increased
in thickness, but additional thin laminated layers of rubber
should be added, for example, as shown in Figure 1. Thus, when
the patent to Niwa is fairly understood, it does not teach away
from the present invention. As to appellant’s argument relative
to the recitation of the sheet form of the rubber layer (main
brief, page 12), we refer to our earlier commentary on this
matter. Appellant asserts that the British document does not
cure the deficiencies of the primary reference Niwa (main brief,
pages 13 and 14). We, on the other hand, find that the teaching
of the British reference reveals that more than a decade before
appellant’s invention those practicing the vibration damping art
were vulcanizing rubber between steel sheets. Not only that, but
the British document also supports our earlier stated position
regarding the selection of a damping layer thickness by expressly
instructing that the thickness of the rubber may be determined by
the man skilled in the art based upon the particular purpose of
the device and known principles governing vibration damping
devices of that type. As should be evident from our analysis,
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007