Appeal No. 1997-0558
Application 08/013,813
Kamimura et al. (Kamimura) 5,033,770 Jul. 23, 1991
Lizell 5,097,419 Mar. 17, 1992
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Kurosawa in view of Doi ‘632, Doi ‘650, and Lizell. With
regard to claims 3 and 21, the examiner additionally relies upon Williams.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Kurosawa in view of Doi ‘632, Doi ‘650, Lizell, and
Kamimura. With regard to claims 7, 11, 14, 16, and 25, the examiner additionally relies upon Klinger.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the examiner, reference is made to the Briefs
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by appellants in the briefs (Brief, pages 8 to 14; Reply Brief,
page 2), and for the reasons which follow, we will reverse the rejections of claims 1 to 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective viewpoints of
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we are in general agreement with
appellants that the applied references would neither have taught nor suggested the active vehicle
suspension control method and apparatus of claims 1 to 26 on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007