Appeal 2007-1215
Application 10/702,724
Appealed claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wallestad in view of
DE ‘448(we rely on the English translation). Claim 7 stands rejected under
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated combination of references
further in view of Sorum, whereas claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under §
103 over the stated combination of references further in view of Stanfield.
Appellant does not set forth separate, substantive arguments for any
particular claim on appeal, although various recitations of appealed claims
are referred to at pages 10-12 of the principal Brief. Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1, and we will limit our
consideration to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Wallestad in view
of DE ‘448.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
At the outset, we note that there is a distinction in the arrangement of
components in the hydropneumatic suspension depicted in Appellant’s
Figure 1 and the figure of Wallestad. However, as explained by the
Examiner, such distinction is not reflected in the breadth of claim 1 on
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013