Appeal No. 1999-1050 Page 5
Application No. 08/440,458
generated by the absorbing core as it is deformed during a seismic event. The energy is
stored both in the core (which is not an elastomer) and in the resilient support that
surrounds the core (which is a sandwich of layers of elastomer and stiff plates), and
subsequently "is used to return the core to its original mechanical state" (column 5, lines 2-
16). Initially, we note that the core disclosed by Buckle is made of lead, whereas the core
in the claimed invention is an elastomer. More importantly, however, Buckle has no
concern for, and does not disclose or teach, providing for the dissipation of heat generated
in the elastomer "sufficiently to prevent degradation of the damping properties of the
elastomer."
For the reasons set forth above, it is clear to us that the combined teachings of
Csák and Buckle fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
2
subject matter recited in claim 1. This being the case, the rejection of
claim 1 is not sustained. It follows that the rejection of claims 2-4, which depend from claim
1, also cannot be sustained.
Independent method claim 5 also contains steps requiring that the elastomer be
engineered to include thermal diffusion and damping properties specified as a function of
a predicted seismic frequency spectrum, and providing for dissipation of heat generated in
2A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings of the prior
art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See, for example, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007