Appeal No. 1999-1050 Page 6
Application No. 08/440,458
the elastomer sufficient to prevent degradation of its damping properties. For the same
reasons as were expressed above with regard to claim 1, the rejection of independent
claim 5 and dependent claims 7-9 also is not sustained.
Apparatus claim 17 is directed to a support system structure comprising at least
two rigid reinforcing piers and at least two reinforcing pads sandwiched about an
elastomer layer. The claim includes the limitations regarding the damping and thermal
diffusion properties of the elastomer that were recited in claim 1, as well as requiring that
there be a heat sink "such that the damping properties of the elastomer are not
significantly degraded by heat generated during the seismic event." As we explained
above, these features are not present in the two applied references, and the rejection of
claim 17 will not be sustained.
The Rejection on the Basis of Csák
Independent apparatus claim 11 and dependent claims 13-15 stand rejected as
being unpatentable over Csák. Claim 11 recites a support system for a structure
comprising a plurality of support piers and at least two rigid reinforcing pads sandwiched
about an elastomer layer that has damping and thermal diffusion properties selected as a
function of characteristics of the structure and of a seismic frequency spectrum expected to
be encountered during a seismic event. This rejection suffers from the same shortcomings
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007