Ex Parte Ziech et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-2613                                                                              
                Application 10/660,239                                                                        

                More specifically, the invention is directed to a control arm and a joint that                
                the control arm forms with the axle.  This joint comprises elements with                      
                inward tapers.                                                                                
                      Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed                       
                subject matter.                                                                               

                      1.  A suspension for a vehicle comprising:                                              
                             a control arm configured for connection to a frame of                            
                      said vehicle and configured to receive an axle, said control arm                        
                      defining a first sleeve disposed about an axis through which                            
                      said axle extends, said first sleeve having a radially inner                            
                      surface that tapers; and                                                                
                             a second sleeve configured to be received within said                            
                      first sleeve of said control arm and about said axis, said second                       
                      sleeve having a radially outer surface that tapers complemen-                           
                      tary to said radially inner surface of said first sleeve.                               

                      The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of                     
                obviousness are:                                                                              
                Pitzer   US 3,009,747   Nov. 21, 1961                                                         
                Kittle   US 5,005,913   Apr. 09, 1991                                                         
                Smith   US 6,491,314 B2   Dec. 10, 2002                                                       

                      Claims 1-3 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being                          
                unpatentable over Smith in view of Kittle.                                                    

                      Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as                  
                being unpatentable over Smith in view of Pitzer.                                              

                                                      2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013