Appeal No. 97-1037
Application 08/467,869
Considering these two disclosures together, it is clear
to us that the focus of the PCT document is the formation of a
non-constraint type of vibration and noise spacer (at least one
external vulcanized rubber layer), while Niwa is particularly
concerned with a constraint type of vibration damper. As such,
we perceive that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider
each of these documents to reveal separate alternative forms of
vibration devices clearly effected by distinctly different
methods of manufacturing, as disclosed. With this latter under-
standing, we cannot fairly say that the examiner’s proposed
significant reworking of the spacer of the PCT document would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art on the
basis of these applied teachings. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claim 1, and the rejection of claims 2 and 4 which
stand or fall with claim 1. The rejection of dependent claims 3
and 5 on the same prior art is likewise reversed in light of our
reversal of the rejection of independent claim 1.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007