Appeal No. 2000-2064
Application No. 08/781,412
drive tag or pusher axle suspension (6) to provide a tandem rear
axle suspension arrangement for trucks and truck-tractors that is
driveable and roadworthy, and which has optimum operating
characteristics combined with minimum weight and costs of
production and maintenance.
As for the examiner's position (answer, page 7) that because
the drive axle suspension of Brandt (Figs. 1 and 2) has a similar
arrangement of upper (38) and lower (40) connecting links to that
seen in appellant's drive axle suspension "it would follow that
it functions in a similar manner as well, i.e., it is 'roll
compliant'," we find no basis for this conclusion and view the
examiner's position as being fraught with speculation and
conjecture. Like appellant, we do not see that the mere presence
of these two similarities in construction necessarily or
inherently means that Brandt's and appellant's respective
suspensions are both "roll compliant" as that term would have
been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art when
construed in light of appellant's disclosure, especially since
the single drive axle suspension of Brandt includes other
components, e.g., the Panhard bar (42), that are specifically
provided to ensure stability in the lateral direction (col. 5,
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007