Appeal No. 2006-0088 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/183,952
We agree with the appellants Le Fol does not describe a vibration side attaching
member comprising a top portion and a spindle portion. Firstly, in our view, element 3
of Le Fol can not be considered a spindle portion as argued by the examiner.
However, even if element 3 of Le Fol is considered a spindle portion, there is no
structure in Le Fol which can be considered a topper portion. Claim 1 requires a spindle
portion and a topper portion. As Le Fol does not describe an attaching member which
comprises a top portion and a spindle portion, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 1 or claims 3 to 7 dependent thereon as being anticipated by Le Fol.
We turn next to the examiner 's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Le Fol in view of Oberle. Claim 2 recites that the axis line of
said vibration side attaching member is made almost parallel to the supporting axis.
The examiner relies on Oberle for teaching an engine mount with a vibration side
attaching member, the vibration side attaching member being formed aslant to a
perpendicular line z of the supporting frame surface.
We have reviewed the disclosure of Oberle and find that Oberle does not remedy
the deficiencies noted above in respect to Le Fol. Therefore, we will not sustain this
rejection for the same reasons discussed above in regard to the anticipation rejection.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007