Appeal No. 2000-0209 Page 4
Application No. 08/693,985
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
filed March 31, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
July 19, 1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 5, 8 to
10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as
follows:
A suspension system installed between a chassis
having side rail members and cross frame members and an
axle of a vehicle, said suspension system including a
step spring having a forward generally horizontal section
having a leading end, a rearward generally horizontal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007