Appeal No. 2005-0208 Page 7
Application No. 10/137,510
rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967),
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
Claim 11 reads as follows:
A method of providing a variable spring rate torsion bar comprising the
steps of :
a) dividing the torsion bar into at least two segments with a contact arm;
b) supporting a second end portion of the torsion bar on a frame;
c) spacing the contact arm from the frame in a first suspension position;
d) adjusting the second end portion relative to the frame to change a gap
between the contact arm and the frame; and
e) engaging the frame with the contact arm in a second suspension
position.
Moon does not teach adjusting the second end portion relative to the frame to
change a gap between the contact arm and the frame. Instead Moon teaches an
axially-adjustable stopper bolt 21 fixed to the vehicle body to restrain rotational
movement of a catching protrusion 19 fixed to the torsion bar 11 beyond a certain
predetermined angle.
It is our opinion that there is no motivation, suggestion or teaching in Moon of the
desirability of making the necessary modification of Moon so as to arrive at the claimed
invention. According, the examiner has not presented a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007