Appeal No. 2002-2017
Application No. 09/567,457
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants' specification and claims, the applied patent,1 and
the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We cannot sustain the rejection on appeal.
Our focus is upon independent claims 1 and 6.
Claim 1 is drawn to a suspension system for a vehicle
comprising, inter alia, a ball link "integrally formed" as an end
of a stabilizer bar. Claim 6 sets forth a method of increasing
1 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of Kincaid for what it would
have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from that disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007