Appeal 2007-0818
Application 10/601,448
1 FINDINGS OF FACT
2 Shono teaches a leveling system for a vehicle where there are four actuators
3 which adjust the height of the vehicle to achieve a target height. The system also
4 monitors acceleration of the vehicle. (Shono, col. 2, ll. 54-67). If the vehicle
5 acceleration is below a threshold value G1 leveling operations can be initiated and
6 performed, this condition is shown in the flow charts as SF=0. (Shono, col. 6, ll.
7 39-60). If the vehicle acceleration is above the first threshold value G1 but below
8 (or equal to) the threshold value G2, leveling will not be initiated1 but if a leveling
9 operation is in progress it will continue. This condition is shown in the flow charts
10 as SF=1. (Shono, col. 10, ll. 35-57). Finally, if the vehicle acceleration is above
11 the threshold value G2, operation of the leveling system is suspended. This is
12 shown in the flow charts as SF=2. (Shono, col. 10, l. 68-col. 11, l. 11). It is not
13 until the vehicle acceleration as at or below the threshold value G2 that leveling is
14 resumed. (Shono, col. 11, ll. 19-22). Leveling operation is stopped when the
15 vehicle reaches the target vehicle height. (Shono, col. 9, l. 51-col. 10, l. 15).
16 Shono is primarily concerned with hydraulic height adjustment actuators but is also
17 applicable to pneumatic height adjustment actuators. (Shono, col. 15, ll. 62-65).
18 Raad teaches a system for controlling vehicle ride height using pneumatic
19 actuators. Raad’s control system monitors acceleration and uses the values to
20 make vehicle roll corrections to the determined ride height. If the sensed roll is
21 greater than a threshold value, the system is disabled until the measured roll is
1 We note in alternative embodiments leveling will be initiated if the vehicle
acceleration is greater than G1 and the difference between target and actual vehicle
height is greater than a threshold. See second embodiment depicted in figure 7,
and described in columns 12 and 13. These embodiments are not relied upon by
the Examiner and do not relate to the issue in contention.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013