Appeal No. 2001-2327 Page 3
Application No. 08/835,460
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all
the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims under
2
appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 7 to 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
Claim 7, the only independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:
A strut mount in a vehicular suspension system which receives a load from a
shock absorber having a piston rod, the strut mount comprising:
a washer fixable to a top end of the piston rod;
an upper sheet fixable to the piston rod at a predetermined distance from the
washer;
an upper rubber ring portion and a lower rubber ring portion disposed
between said washer and said upper sheet;
a plate disposed between said upper rubber ring portion and said lower
rubber ring portion and extending outwardly in the radial direction; and
a coil spring receiving rubber ring portion provided on a lower side of said
plate for receiving a coil spring disposed about the shock absorber, said lower
rubber ring and said coil spring receiving rubber ring portion each serving as
impact absorbing bodies, at least said lower rubber ring portion and said coil
spring receiving rubber ring portion being formed as an integral structure molded to
said plate by vulcanization molding thereby defining a joining portion
interconnecting said lower rubber ring portion and said coil spring receiving rubber
ring portion, said joining portion overlying at least an area portion of said lower side
of said plate.
2In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007