Appeal No. 1997-1722
Application No. 08/385,256
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments presented on appeal, we
agree with appellants that the prior art cited by the examiner fails to support a prima facie
case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, for essentially the
reasons expressed by appellants, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections.
Thiry, Troyer and Ferguson, the references directed to vibration dampers, fail to
teach or suggest employing an adhesive that is cured "without heating it to a temp-erature
greater than 90° C" as required by the appealed claims. Thiry discloses proceeding with
hot vulcanization of imperfectly vulcanized india-rubber in order to effect adhesion to the
metallic sleeve (page 2, lines 29, et seq). In addition, Thiry does not disclose any one of
the claimed adhesives which are initially non-adhesive. Troyer adds very little by simply
disclosing that a "suitable bonding agent may be applied to the elastic element and the
driving and driven members" (column 2, lines 19 and 20). Ferguson, on the other hand,
although disclosing the use of a dried adhesive film that is non-tacky, discloses that "[t]he
adhesive is thermosetting and will bond to the rubber and meatal surfaces at
approximately 200° F." (column 5, lines 13-15).
The failure of Thiry, Troyer and Ferguson to disclose adhesives of the type claimed
for making vibration dampers is not remedied by the disclosures of McGuire and
Somerville. Appellants set forth at page 14 of the brief how McGuire and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007