Appeal 2006-2022
Application 10/092,320
doing so would destroy the function and purpose of Yamamoto’s device.
Ratti, 270 F.2d at 981, 123 USPQ at 352. See our discussion in the CLAIM
1 section above for further explanation of the reasoning behind our
determination.
We also add that neither Yamamoto nor Hein discloses a diaphragm
having a periphery with a “raised rim” as recited in claim 8. Since all the
features of claim 8 are not disclosed by the prior art, the § 103(a) rejection
cannot stand. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442
(Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583
(CCPA 1974).
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the § 103(a) rejection over Yamamoto
in view of Hein of claims 8-13.
REMAND
The Examiner should consider rejecting at least claim 1 under
§ 102(e) over Yamamoto US 6,505,822 B1. Yamamoto appears to teach a
vibration-proof device having the following features: an orifice member (11)
(i.e., upper orifice plate); a partition plate (12) (i.e., lower orifice plate) and a
generally planar rubber membrane (13) having a central node (33a) and a
diaphragm (34). The rubber membrane is positioned between the orifice
member (11) and partition plate (12) such that the central node (33a) of the
rubber membrane (13) is in constant contact with both the orifice member
(11) and partition plate (12) (Figure 1). Moreover, as discussed more fully
below, the “periphery” of the diaphragm 34 is spaced apart from the
partition plate (12) (i.e., lower orifice plate) and is free to move between the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007