Appeal No. 1999-1757 Page 7
Application No. 08/895,637
30 used in conjunction with a shock absorber 20 to provide a
suspension control system for an automotive vehicle that can
suppress squat or nose-up upon vehicle acceleration, not a
liquid spring. Also, to the extent that the examiner has
focused on modifying the shock absorber 20 of Kouda, seen in
Fig. 2 of the patent, we see no reasonable basis for the
examiner's statement that it would have been obvious to have
utilized a compressible liquid in the system of Kouda.
Moreover, Kouda has a spring and a separate shock absorber,
and even if one of ordinary skill did use a compressible
liquid in Kouda's shock absorber this would not result in a
vibration control system utilizing a liquid spring and control
means for varying at least one of spring and damping forces as
recited in the appellants' claim 1.
When challenged that "neither reference cited discloses
the use of multiple liquid volumes for the same (emphasis
added) mechanism" (brief, page 9), the examiner takes the
untenable position that "there is only one volume of fluid
separated by a valve" (answer, pages 2 and 4) and makes no
attempt to explain what there is in the prior art that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007