Appeal No. 2006-0135
Application 10/271,656
Hohnstadt, urging that it teaches a method of mounting a power train (engine 12) to a
suspension tower, as shown in Figure 1. From the combined teachings of the applied
patents, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellants’ invention to use Hohnstadt’s method of mounting a power
train to a suspension tower to mount the power train of Emmons to the upper connection
points (74, 87) of the suspension members (80). According to the examiner,
Mounting the power train at the upper connection point will position the
power train in a cantilever fashion, forward of the passenger compartment.
One would be motivated to attach the engine to the upper connection point in
the suspension tower in the invention taught by Emmons, to allow the load of
the engine to be supported by the suspension without the need for an
intermediate connecting link between the suspension and the engine, thus
reducing the weight of the vehicle and increasing the efficiency of the vehicle
(answer page 4).
Each of the claims on appeal includes a limitation associated with the power train
assembly of the motor vehicle being “cantilevered from the support members and bulkhead
forward of the cross member.” On page 13 of the specification, it is noted that “[b]y
‘cantilevered’ it is meant that the center of gravity of the power train assembly 204 is
positioned outward from the bulkhead 102 and drive train support 202.” This arrangement is
best seen in Figures 8 and 9 of the application drawings, wherein it is clear that the center of
gravity of the power train assembly (204) would be positioned outward from the bulkhead
(102) and outward (i.e., forward of) the drive train support (202) towards the front end of the
vehicle.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007