Appeal No. 2000-2064
Application No. 08/781,412
lines 42-50), which components are not present in appellant's
drive axle suspension.
In light of the foregoing, we see no basis for one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the tandem rear axle
suspension arrangement of RIDEWELL by the single axle suspension
of Brandt so as to result in the drive axle in RIDEWELL having a
"roll compliant" suspension. Moreover, even if the additional
reference ELECTRAC were combined with RIDEWELL in the manner
urged by the examiner, we note that it does not provide for the
deficiency we have noted above. Since we have determined that
the teachings and suggestions that would have been fairly derived
from RIDEWELL, Brandt and ELECTRAC would not have made the
subject matter as a whole of claim 1 on appeal obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant's invention,
we must refuse to sustain the examiner's rejection of that claim
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). It follows that the examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 2, 4 through 7, 9 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on RIDEWELL, Brandt and ELECTRAC will
also not be sustained.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007