Appeal 2006-2022
Application 10/092,320
Modifying Yamamoto’s diaphragm to have a freely floating end, as Hein
discloses, would remove Yamamoto’s restrained sliding movement of the
diaphragm “open end” (35), the very feature that permits Yamamoto to
achieve his goal of reducing abnormal sound in the vibration-proof device.
Based on our foregoing discussion, we cannot sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1-7 and 14-18 over Yamamoto in view of Hein.
CLAIM 8
Claim 8 recites the same features as claim 1 with the additional
feature of the periphery of the diaphragm having a raised rim.
The Examiner rejects claims 8-13 under § 103(a) over Yamamoto in
view of Hein. The Examiner does not address the raised-rim feature in his
explanation of the rejection (Answer 3; Final Office Action 2-3).
Appellants make the same arguments regarding the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 8, as they made regarding the § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1. However, Appellants further argue that neither Yamamoto nor
Hein disclose a “raised rim” as required by claim 8.
The Examiner makes the same response to Appellants’ previously
made arguments. The Examiner does not respond to Appellants’ argument
regarding the raised rim.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments made with respect to claim 8 that
were previously made with respect to claim 1, our previously noted
disposition applies to those arguments. As explained above, the
modification of Yamamoto’s vibration-proof device to incorporate the freely
floating ends of Hein’s decoupler appears to be based on hindsight.
Additionally, this modification is contrary to Yamamoto’s disclosure and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007