Appeal No. 97-1037
Application 08/467,869
supra, we are not in accord with the argued view (pages 4 and 5
of the reply briefs; Paper Nos. 22 and 25) to the effect that
the rejection is based upon appellant’s disclosure and an imper-
missible hindsight reconstruction of random prior art facts in
light thereof. We earlier explained that the prior art itself
would have been suggestive of the claimed invention to one having
ordinary skill. Further, as articulated, supra, each of Niwa and
the British patent are seen as suggesting to those versed in the
art the alternatives of a damping layer of rubber and hot-melt
adhesive resin film and a damping layer of vulcanized rubber.
The rejection of claims 1 through 5
We reverse the rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
As earlier indicated, the insert of claim 1 on appeal
requires two metal plates and a damping layer enclosed there-
between, wherein said damping layer is thinner than each of said
metal plates and is comprised of a rubber layer which is a sheet
that is formed and subsequently vulcanized to the two metal
plates.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007