Appeal 2006-1143
Application 10/256,703
Accordingly, the sole issue on appeal is whether the examiner has by a
preponderance of the evidence established a prima facie obviousness of claims 1, 2, 5-7
and 9.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Wilfert discloses a suspension system for a vehicle with a vehicle frame having
front and rear sections. A first front and second front actuator are provided at 27 along
with the two rear actuators 27. A piston divides each actuator chamber into two fluid
chambers. Wilfert discloses that the first fluid chamber of the first front hydraulic
actuator is in fluid communication with the second fluid chamber of the second front
hydraulic actuator and vice versa. The same is true of Wilfert's rear actuators. We agree
with the examiner that Wilfert does not show us a coupler for selectively fluidly coupling
and decoupling at least one of the first and second front hydraulic actuators to said first or
second rear hydraulic actuator.
Tschanz also discloses a hydraulic suspension system for a vehicle. The system
includes two front hydraulic actuators, 1, 2, and two rear hydraulic actuators, 3, 4.
Tschanz further discloses multiple ways for a coupling the front and rear hydraulic
actuators. For example, it appears that hydraulic actuator 2 is always coupled to
hydraulic actuator 3 via 8, 25 and 15. However, it is our finding and agreement with the
examiner that large displacements of piston 5 in cylinder 24 for example, cause valve 10
to reciprocate to the left, open and bypass 12, and allowing communication via 24 and 15
with rear cylinder 4. Therefore, we are in agreement that Tschanz does allow for
selective coupling of front and rear actuators.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013