Appeal No. 2004-0157 Page 4
Application No. 09/706,771
positive scrub radius recited in the claims.” See Answer, page 5. The appellants argue
that no suggestion exists in either of the applied references which would have
motivated the artisan to modify the Ando suspension system in the manner proposed
by the examiner. We agree, and we will not sustain the rejection of independent
apparatus claim 1 or independent method claim 16, which contains the same limitation,
or of the claims depending therefrom. Our reasons for arriving at this conclusion follow.
Edahiro is directed to a rear suspension system for a motor vehicle. This
reference discloses in Figures 7 and 8 a rear suspension arrangement which comprises
a vertically oriented trailing arm 9 provided with an upper bushing 30 and a lower
bushing 32. The bushings also are vertically oriented, and each bushing has a pair of
opposed arcuate chambers (30d, 30e, 32d, 32e) connected to one another by
passages (30f, 32f). The chambers of upper bushing 30 extend generally horizontally
and this bushing causes the suspension system to resist deformation in the up and
down direction, while the chambers in lower bushing 32 extend generally vertically and
this bushing damps the suspension in the longitudinal direction (column 6, line 64-
column 7, line 5).
We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in either reference
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ando front wheel
suspension system in the manner proposed by the examiner. While it is true that
Edahiro discloses bushings that resist deformation more in one direction than in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007