Appeal No. 1996-3507
Application 08/041,209
Independent claim 8, which like claim 2 calls for
controlling the damping characteristics in response to vehicle
speed and vertical speed, is directed to the squatting control
routines employed in appellants' second and third embodiments
of the control system (Figures 16 and 18).
C. The references and grounds of rejection
The § 103 rejections are based on the following U.S.
patents:
Ema 4,975,849 Dec. 12, 1990
Athanas et al. (Athanas) 5,016,908 May 21,
1991
Matsumoto et al. (Matsumoto) 5,162,996 Nov. 10,
1992
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 stand rejected under § 103 as
unpatentable over Ema in view of Matsumoto.
Claim 5 stands rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over
Ema and Matsumoto in view of Athanas.
Ema discloses two embodiments each employing two
different types of suspension unit control. Referring to the
first embodiment (Figures 1-9), the first type of control,
which is responsive to vehicle speed, steering angle, and
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007