Appeal No. 2000-2064
Application No. 08/781,412
Having reviewed and evaluated the applied references, we are
in agreement with appellant that the examiner has misapprehended
the Brandt patent by concluding that this reference teaches a
drive axle suspension that is "roll compliant." In this regard,
we agree with appellant's evaluation of Brandt set forth in the
paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 of Paper No. 27, filed May 26,
2000, and also in the reply brief (Paper No. 30, filed July 24,
2000). Like appellant, we are of the view that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that the single axle
suspension seen in Figures 1 and 2 of Brandt and relied upon by
the examiner is sufficiently roll stable so as to be driveable
and roadworthy, and to thereby be such as to inherently resist
the tendency to roll excessively when negotiating sharp turns.
By contrast, appellant's drive axle suspension is said to be
"roll compliant," meaning (specification, page 1) that it does
not adequately resist the tendency of a vehicle to roll when
negotiating sharp turns (i.e., that appellant's drive axle
suspension if used alone would be viewed by an artisan as not
being roadworthy or safe to drive because of excessive roll
(i.e., roll beyond established safety limits) when negotiating
sharp turns). This is why appellant combines the "roll
compliant" drive axle suspension (5) with a "roll stable" non-
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007