Appeal 2006-2022
Application 10/092,320
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the
Appellants and by the Examiner concerning this rejection, we refer to the
Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer respectively for a complete
exposition thereof.
OPINION
Appellants indicate two claim groupings in their Brief. Group I
includes claims 1-5, 7, 14-16, and 18. Group II includes claims 6, 8-13, and
17. Claims 1 and 8 are the broadest independent claims in each of the
groupings. Accordingly, we choose independent claims 1 and 8 as
representative claims on which to render our decision.
CLAIM 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1-7 and 14-18 under § 103(a) over
Yamamoto in view of Hein (Answer 3, Final Office Action 2). The
Examiner states that Yamamoto discloses all the features of claim 1, except
for “the periphery of the decoupler [i.e., Yamamoto’s diaphragm 34] . . .
spaced apart from the [upper and lower orifice] plates” (Final Office Action
2). The Examiner indicates that Hein discloses “an engine mount having a
decoupler 38 spaced from the partitions to allow free movement” (Final
Office Action 2). Based on these disclosures, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have “spaced apart the periphery of the decoupler [i.e., diaphragm 34] of
Yamamoto . . . in view of the teaching of Hein . . . so as to allow for
different degrees of damping for different oscillations as taught by Hein . . .”
(Final Office Action 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007