Appeal 2006-2022
Application 10/092,320
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion or motivation to modify
Yamamoto’s diaphragm to include the freely floating ends of Hein’s
decoupler in the manner proposed by the Examiner (Br. 6). Appellants
contend that the Examiner has merely relied on a conclusory statement as
the reason for combining the teachings of the references (Br. 6). In this
regard, Appellants allege that the Examiner has failed to provide any
evidence of motivation to combine from either the references or from the
Examiner’s knowledge, either by Official Notice or an Examiner’s Affidavit
(Br. 6).
Appellants argue that both Yamamoto and Hein disclose that the
peripheries of their diaphragms are “sealed against the mount” (Br. 6).
Specifically, Appellants refer to Yamamoto’s disclosure at column 7, lines
7-49 and Hein’s disclosure at Figure 2 (i.e., diaphragm 32 is sealed against
partition assembly 28 by tabs 36) as teaching a sealed arrangement for the
diaphragm (Br. 6). Based on these arguments, the Appellants conclude that
the references fail to teach the claimed subject matter and the § 103 rejection
must fail (Br. 8).
Appellants further argue that the Examiner has engaged in
impermissible hindsight because there is a “void of evidence around the
Examiner’s allegation of obviousness” (Br. 9). Appellants contend that
since the Examiner is “unable to support the allegation of obviousness with a
citation to either Yamamoto or Hein, the Examiner’s use of impermissible
hindsight is apparent” (Br. 9).
Appellants argue that the suggested modification of Yamamoto with
Hein would destroy the “intent, purpose or function of the invention
disclosed in the reference” (Br. 9). Appellants argue that Hein differentiates
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007