Appeal No. 1997-2686
Application 08/346,635
prior art and are not the result of routine experimentation
and optimization as alleged by the examiner. The fact that
the applied prior art discloses ratios opposite to those set
forth in the claimed invention suggests that the claimed
ratios are not the result of routine experimentation or
optimization. The examiner has supplied no evidence on this
record in support of his conclusion. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4 as set forth by the
examiner.
We now consider the rejection of claims 7, 8, 19 and
20 based on the teachings of Eggebeen, Von Behren and
Habegger. Many of appellants’ arguments with respect to these
claims were considered and discussed above. Appellants also
argue that there is nothing in Habegger which would suggest
the addition of a layer of damping material intermediate the
high stiffness and low stiffness materials [brief, page 13].
The examiner responds that the damping layer suggested by
Habegger is sufficient to suggest the obviousness of this
feature as broadly recited in the claims [answer, page 13].
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007