Appeal 2006-1143
Application 10/256,703
a first front hydraulic actuator and a second front hydraulic actuator in said front
section;
a first rear hydraulic actuator and a second rear hydraulic actuator in said rear
section;
a piston defining a first fluid chamber and as second fluid chamber within each of
said first and second front hydraulic actuators and first and second rear hydraulic
actuators;
a rod disposed in each of said second fluid chambers and operatively connected to
said piston of each of said first and second front hydraulic actuators and first and second
rear hydraulic actuators, wherein said first fluid chamber of said first front hydraulic
actuator is in fluid communication with said second fluid chamber of said second front
hydraulic actuator and wherein said first fluid chamber is said first rear hydraulic
actuator is in fluid communication with said second fluid chamber of said second rear
hydraulic actuator; and
a coupler that selectively fluidically couples and decouples at least one of said
first and second front hydraulic actuators and at least one of said first and second rear
hydraulic actuators.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness
are:
Tschanz 2,184,202 Dec. 19, 1939
Wilfert 3,881,736 May 6, 1975
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Wilfert in view of Tschanz.
ISSUES
Appellant has two principal arguments with respect to the obviousness rejection.
The first argument is that Tschanz does not show front and rear actuators that are
selectively coupled. Appellant's second argument is that there is no teaching, suggestion,
or motivation for combining the collective disclosures of Wilfert and Tschanz.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013