Appeal No. 2005-0768
Application No. 10/010,203
shoe supporting metal 25, 31 a bolt secured to the rear
surface of shoe supporting metal 25 and penetrating
through the hole 20b made in the raised section 20a of
frame 20, and 32 a nut attached to said bolt
[translation, pages 5 and 6].
Figures 1 through 3 show that the system includes four anti-
vibration rubbers 22, two on either side of an elevator guide
rail 1 enveloped by the shoe 26 and each bonded at one end to the
bracket 21 and at the other end to one of the plates 23.
As framed and argued by the appellant, the dispositive issue
with regard to the rejection of claim 2 is whether Kiri meets the
limitations in the claim requiring the at least one vibration
isolator to have a plurality of layers with at least one layer
being a hard layer and at least one layer being a soft layer.
The examiner views these limitations as being met by the layered
construction embodied by each of Kiri’s rubbers 22 and the
horizontal section of bracket 21 and/or plate 23 bonded thereto.
Echoing the arguments made with respect to the rejection based on
Mason, the appellant submits that “the only element described in
the Japanese reference that has any purpose as a vibration
isolator is the rubber 22. None of the other elements relied
upon by the Examiner are indicated in the reference as having any
vibration isolation function” (reply brief, page 2).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007