Appeal No. 1999-1050 Page 3
Application No. 08/440,458
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, the applied prior art references, the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner, and the guidance provided by our
reviewing court. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The Rejections on the Basis of Csák and Buckle
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of mitigating seismic forces on a
structure during a seismic event. Among the steps of the method is providing a damped
support system for the structure comprising a plurality of support piers surrounded by at
least two layers of reinforced concrete on either side of at least one layer of an elastomer,
wherein said elastomer is engineered to include thermal diffusion and
damping properties determined as a function of properties of the structure
and as a function of an expected seismic event frequency spectrum
(emphasis added).
Csák and Buckle both are directed to shock absorption systems for buildings. In the
course of the explanation of the rejection, the examiner acknowledged that neither
reference taught the step recited above, but took the position that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to choose an elastomer layer with damping properties . . . selected as a
function of the characteristics of the structure and as a function of a seismic
frequency since it was known in the art that support systems are constructed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007