Ex Parte Rawson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2007

09829883 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SCOTT A. RAWSON
____________

Appeal 2006-3169
Application 09/829,883
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 29, 2007
____________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
LINDA E. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Scott A. Rawson (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 10-13, 17, 18, 20, and 21, the only
claims pending in the Application. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appeal 2006-3169
Application 09/829,883

Appellant invented a vibration isolation member that provides
substantially equal dynamic stiffness in radial and axial dimensions and
includes an outer member, an inner member, and a resilient member
disposed between and bonded to the inner and outer members (Specification
[0001] and [0022]). The dimensions of the peripheries of the inner and outer
members provide for an interference between the inner and outer members
to afford a fail-safe feature in the event the resilient member fails
(Specification [0001], [0007], and [0021]).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A single resilient member iso-elastic
vibration isolation member comprising:
(a) an inner member for attachment to a
suspended body, said inner member comprising a
frustoconical seat having an angled surface and an
outer periphery diameter D’;
(b) an outer member for attachment to a
planar support structure, said outer member
comprising a planar base defining a base plane and
a shroud that extends away from the planar base
and said base plane, the shroud extending to
overlay the inner member outer periphery diameter
D’, said shroud having an angled segment with an
inner surface, said angled segment inner surface
oriented substantially parallel to said angled
surface of said frustoconical seat, said shroud
defining an inner periphery diameter D”, said inner
periphery diameter D” less than said outer
periphery diameter D’, said inner member not
extending through said outer member base plane;
and
(c) consisting essentially of a single sole
resilient member constrained between the shroud
angled segment inner surface and the inner
2
Appeal 2006-3169
Application 09/829,883

member frustoconical seat angled surface, said
single resilient member having a cross section, said
single resilient member bonded to said shroud
angled segment inner surface and said inner
member frustoconical seat angled surface, wherein
said single resilient member bonded to said shroud
angled segment inner surface and said inner
member frustoconical seat angled surface provides
for iso-elastic displacement of said inner member
in a radial direction and in an axial direction from
said outer member with said frustoconical seat
outer periphery diameter D’ providing an
interference with said shroud inner periphery
diameter D” to prevent a separation of the
vibration isolation member in the event of a failure
of said single resilient member, wherein said single
sole resilient member is the sole resilient member
providing for isolation between the suspended
body and the support structure with said iso-elastic
vibration isolation member providing a
substantially equal dynamic stiffness in the radial
direction and in the axial direction for an applied
load between the suspended body and the support
structure.

The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Saurer US 2,538,658 Jan. 16, 1951
Nowak US 5,116,030 May 26, 1992

Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2,
10-13, 17, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Saurer in view of Nowak. The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection based
on Nowak in view of Kubaugh set forth in the Final Rejection (Answer 3).
3
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
Appeal 2006-3169
Application 09/829,883

3. Saurer’s body 3 is not bonded to the housing 1 along the entire extent
of their normally (i.e., in the unloaded condition) contacting surfaces.
Specifically, there is no bond between body 3 and housing 1 in an annular
area of the body 3 lying directly beneath flange 5 of housing 1 and extending
outwardly to the point where the flaring portion of the housing merges with
the cylindrical portion (Saurer, col. 3, ll. 19-30). Upon axial movement of
member 2 in a downward direction, as viewed in Figs. 2 and 3, and resultant
distortion of body 3, the unbonded area of body 3 will draw away from the
adjacent inner surface of the housing to provide a cavity between body 3 and
flange 5 (col. 3, ll. 30-38). The cavity permits air, or other compressible
fluid, to be confined and expelled through a breather opening 10 to provide
additional resilience or serve as a means for damping (col. 1, ll. 21-26;
col. 3, ll. 38-39).
4. Saurer ensures that there will be no bond between body 3 and the
inner surface of housing 1 in the area along the flaring portion of housing 1
by coating the inner surface of the flaring portion with a flux coating 12 of
“anti-stick” composition for preventing adhesion of rubber to metal (Saurer,
col. 4, ll. 4-9).
5. While Saurer refers to the annular area of body 3 “which normally
contacts with the portion of the inner surface of the housing to which flux
coating 12 was applied” (Saurer, col. 4, ll. 34-37), Saurer does not describe
that area of body 3 as being bonded to the inner surface of housing 1. On
the contrary, according to Saurer, that area of body 3 “will be free to draw
away from such surface” (Saurer, col. 4, ll. 37-38) upon application of a
load.
5
Appeal 2006-3169
Application 09/829,883

6. The Examiner did not rely on Nowak for any teaching or suggestion
to provide a bond between a resilient member and a shroud angled segment
inner surface.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner erred in finding that body 3 is initially bonded to the
portion of the inner surface of housing 1 to which the “anti-stick” flux
coating is applied. Saurer clearly teaches that body 3 is not bonded to the
inner surface of housing 1 in the area that normally contacts the coated
portion of housing 1; rather, body 3 is free to draw away from housing 1 to
form an air cavity upon application of a load (Findings of Fact 3-5).
Saurer’s body 3 is not bonded to any part of the flaring portion of housing 1
(Finding of Fact 3) and therefore does not satisfy the “said single resilient
member bonded to said shroud angled segment inner surface” limitation of
independent claims 1 and 12. The Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 12, and claims 2, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 20, and 21 depending from
claims 1 and 12, is grounded in part on the Examiner’s erroneous finding
that Saurer’s body 3 is initially bonded to the “anti-stick” composition
coated flaring portion of housing 1 and thus cannot be sustained.

6
Appeal 2006-3169
Application 09/829,883

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 10-13, 17, 18, 20,
and 21 is reversed.
REVERSED

jlb

EDWARD F. MURPHY III
LORD CORPORATION
POST OFFICE BOX 8012
CARY, NC 27512-8012
7