Appeal 2007-1215
Application 10/702,724
appeal. As a result, Appellant’s arguments are not germane to subject matter
within the scope of the appealed claims.
Appellant contends that:
Claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over the Wallestad
and DE patents by the hydraulic control using fluid pressure
directly from between the accumulator and the cylinder to move
the pilot-actuated valve, in the form of a proportional valve, to
its closed position against the bias of a reset spring. (Emphasis
added.)
(Principal Br. 4, last sentence). However, as pointed out by the Examiner,
appealed claim 1 does not require any such use of fluid pressure directly
between the accumulator and the cylinder. Moreover, we find no error in the
Examiner’s reasoning that the node positioned above check valve 62 of
Wallestad is, in fact, located between suspension cylinder 12 and
accumulator 26. Also, we agree with the Examiner that the fluid pressure
from pump 34 at the node above valve 62 is relayed through the switching
valve 68 to the actuation side of pilot actuated valve 28. Although Appellant
further argues that “the Wallestad patent indicates that the pressure from
pump 34 is used for the pilot pressure for valve 28 and not the pressure
between accumulator 26 and cylinder 12” (principal Br. 6, second para.), we
note that pump 34 is also between the cylinder and the accumulator and, as
explained by the Examiner, provides the fluid pressure that is tapped at the
node above valve 62.
Appellant sets forth certain differences between the claimed
suspension system and the one set forth in DE ‘448. However, we concur
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013