Appeal No. 2005-2335 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/333,711
lateral guides, said two bearing surfaces approaching each other in at least one
direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the lateral guides,” as called for in
claim 1. Appellants do not challenge the examiner’s position that the U-shaped edge
portions 15 of the flange portion 12' are lateral guides. Rather, appellants argue that
there is no disclosure that the slot 16 defined by the edge portions 15 narrows from front
to back and, thus, that the edge portions 15 do not approach each other as contended
by the examiner (brief, page 4). According to appellants, there is no disclosure in
Nakagaki of a wedge formed by two bearing surfaces that approach
each other in any direction, much less the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal
direction Y (brief, pages 4 and 5).
Appellants’ characterization of the slot 16 as not being shown as narrowing from
front to back (the direction of insertion of upper plate 21') in Figure 3 appears to be
correct. We observe, however, that (1) claim 1 is directed to an assembled antivibration
support and does not require that the wedge be formed prior to fixing of the rigid insert
to the first strength member by engagement between the lateral guides, (2) there is no
requirement in claim 1 that the wedge extend over any particular distance or extent of
the lateral guides and (3) claim 1 is sufficiently broad as to encompass either an
arrangement wherein the at least one abutment zone recited in the third paragraph of
the claim results in the wedge referred to in the last paragraph of the claim or an
arrangement wherein the wedge and the abutment zone are two distinct elements.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007