Appeal 2006-3169
Application 09/829,883
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Answer (mailed September 22, 2005). Appellant presents opposing
arguments in the Brief (filed July 11, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed
November 25, 2005).
THE ISSUE
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Saurer’s body 3 of
resilient material is bonded to the inner surface of the flaring portion (the
angled portion between the cylindrical portion and flange 5 - Saurer, col. 2,
ll. 30-40; col. 3, l. 27) of housing 1 so as to meet the “said single resilient
member bonded to said shroud angled segment inner surface” limitation of
independent claims 1 and 12. The Examiner contends that Saurer’s body 3
of resilient material is initially bonded to the housing 1 in this region until a
certain loading force is applied (Answer 5). Appellant contends that the
body 3 is not initially bonded to the flaring portion of housing 1 (Reply
Br. 4).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Saurer discloses a resilient mounting including a housing 1, a member
2 disposed within housing 1, and a body 3 of resilient material “interposed
between and bonded to said housing and axially disposed member” (Saurer,
col. 2, ll. 23-29).
2. Saurer’s housing 1 includes a generally cylindrical portion, an
inwardly directed flange 5 at the upper end of the housing, and an inwardly
flaring portion joining the generally cylindrical portion and flange 5 (Saurer,
col. 2, ll. 30-40; col. 3, l. 27).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013