Appeal No. 2001-0738
Application No. 08/953,606
Under these circumstances, it is inappropriate, in our view, to
consider members 14, 15 and 16 as being parts of the suspension
member 17. Rather, they are integral portions of the frame 13.
In addition, elements 36 are not portions of the suspension
cross member 17, as the examiner appears to believe, but rather
separate “A-type suspension arms” that are pivotally mounted to
the cross member 18 of suspension member 17 and to attachment
members 16, respectively, by shafts 38 (see Figure 6) and
connecting sleeves 41 (see Figure 4). Thus, it also is
inappropriate to consider Mukai’s elements 36 as being part of
the suspension cross member 17. Based on the above, it is
questionable whether Mukai would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the attachment members (not
numbered) at the corners of Ni’s Figure 1 tubular structural
member should be disposed to extend vertically.
More importantly, we are in agreement with appellants’
argument on page 6 of the main brief and pages 2 and 3 of the
reply brief that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
mounting vertically extending rear attachment members to the
downwardly sloping intermediate sections of the frame rails, as
called for in the last paragraph of claim 12. Ni discloses no
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007