Appeal No. 2002-0847
Application 09/139,607
the arm member and the handle since the accumulator is mounted on
the strut, as originally disclosed (specification, page 4; Fig.
1).
With the above understanding of claim 1 in mind, it is at
once apparent to this panel of the Board that, while the combined
teachings of the applied prior art would have motivated one
having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an accumulator with
the hydraulic system of Hawkins (Fig. 8; column 5, lines 17
through 24) following the hydraulic system teaching of Hunger
(Fig. 6; column 5, lines 37 through 61), those teachings would
not have been suggestive of an extendible strut “with” an
accumulator pivotally connected to an arm member and pivotally
connectable to a handle, as set forth in claim 1. Since the
evidence before us does not support a conclusion of obviousness,
the rejection of claims 1, 2 through 12, 15 through 18, 20, and
21 cannot be sustained.
As to the respective obviousness rejections of claims 13 and
14 and claim 9, which likewise rely upon the combined teachings
of Hawkins and Hunger, with the addition of Livesay and Townsend,
we readily perceive that the latter teachings do not overcome the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007