Ex parte HAYASHI et al. - Page 6




            Appeal No. 2001-2327                                                          Page 6              
            Application No. 08/835,460                                                                        


                   the first and second cylindrical elastic bodies 40, 42 are formed integrally with each     
                   other, and cooperate with the first support member 34 to constitute a first                
                   intermediate product 58 as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. The sleeve portion 4B and the           
                   support plate portion 50 of the first support member 34 have a suitable number of          
                   through-holes 60 formed therethrough, so that the rubber material flows through            
                   these through-holes 60 onto the outer circumferential surface of the sleeve portion        
                   48 and the lower surface of the support plate portion 50, in the process of                
                   vulcanization, so that the above-indicated outer circumferential surface and lower         
                   surface are covered at the substantially entire areas thereof with thin rubber layers,     
                   which contribute to an increase in the durability of the sleeve and support plate          
                   portions 48, 50, and an increase in the strength of bonding of the first and second        
                   elastic bodies 40, 42 to the sleeve and support plate portions 48.                         

                   After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between       
            the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained.  Graham v. John Deere Co.,           
            383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).                                                      


                  Based on our analysis and review of the admitted prior art and claim 7, it is our          
                                          3                                                                   
            opinion that the only difference  is the limitation that                                          
                   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.                       





                   The examiner ascertained (answer, pp. 2-3) that the admitted prior art "discloses all the element3                                                                                         
            recited here . . . but for the lower rubber ring and coil spring rubber ring being integral."     







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007