Appeal No. 1999-2003
Application No. 08/751,545
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants indicate on
page 3 of the Brief that the claims do not all stand or fall
together. In particular, appellants state that claims 4, 7, and
24 each stand or fall alone, but the remaining claims stand or
fall together. We agree. Accordingly, we will treat claims 1
through 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 25, and 26 as a single group with
claim 1 as representative, and each of claims 4, 7, and 24
individually.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5,
6, 8, 9, 21, 25, and 26 and reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 4, 7, and 24.
Representative claim 1 requires, in pertinent part, a
supporting member between the casing and the protective housing
and a maintaining member supporting the protective housing,
wherein the supporting member and the maintaining member have
different vibration damping characteristics. The examiner (Final
Rejection, page 2) cites Gatti as teaching maintaining members,
Koyanagi as teaching supporting members, and Hishinuma as
teaching different vibration damping characteristics. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007