Appeal No. 2004-0516
Application No. 09/578,072
at least one pivot for pivotally attaching the
beam to each of said hanger brackets;
said at least one beam including a support plate;
and
an air bladder supported on the support plate and
adapted to be positioned intermediate the support
plate and the vehicle frame and extending
substantially the distance between the right said and
the left side.
7. The suspension system as defined in Claim 3
further comprising a fastener for securing the air
bladder and the support plate, and in which the
fastener is an adhesive.
10. The suspension system as defined in Claim 3
in which a supplemental plate is positioned within the
air bladder and is adapted to secure the air bladder
between the supplemental plate and the support plate.
Appellant groups the claims as set forth on page 4 of
brief. Insofar as the claims have been separately argued, we
consider the claims separately in this appeal. See 37 CRF §
1.192(c)(7 and 8)(2002).
Claims 1 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Gouirand ‘651.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over VanDenberg in view of Smith.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over VanDenberg in view of Smith and further
in view of Gouirand ‘325.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over VanDenberg in view of Smith and further
in view of Higby.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007