Appeal No. 2006-0135
Application 10/271,656
Applying that same understanding of the “cantilevered” limitation to the examiner’s
combination of Emmons and Hohnstadt, where the power train assembly would purportedly
be supported from the upper connection points (74, 87) of the suspension towers (80), we
note that while such a power train assembly may well be positioned outward from the
bulkhead (i.e., fire wall 48), it would appear that it would not be positioned outward (i.e.,
forward of) the suspension towers/support members (80) towards the front end of the
vehicle, and thus would not be “cantilevered from the support members and bulkhead
forward of the cross member,” as required in the claims on appeal.
The examiner commentary on page 7 of the answer that
mounting the engine in the fashion taught by Emmons and as modified by
Hohnstadt et al. does produce a cantilever mounting arrangement in the
manner defined by applicant “member [engine] supported projecting beyond a
fulcrum [the fulcrum is the engine’s center of gravity] and supported by
[supported by the suspension mounts] a... force [force is the force applied by
the engine mounts taught by Hohnstadt et al.] behind the fulcrum [the engine
is support at a rear, upper end]”
incorrectly states that the fulcrum would be the engine’s center of gravity and appears to be
fraught with speculation and conjecture as to exactly how the engine would be supported on
suspension towers (80) at points (74,87), i.e., that the engine would somehow be supported
“at a rear, upper end.”
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions found in Emmons and
Hohnstadt would not have made the subject matter as a whole of independent claims 1, 6
and 20 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007