Appeal 2007-2613
Application 10/660,239
ISSUE
The sole issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether the
Appellant has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-12, 14, 18, and 20 on the ground of
obviousness.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Smith discloses several embodiments of a trailing arm suspension for
a vehicle. With reference to Fig. 1 of Smith, Smith discloses a frame 10
with control arm 18 pivotally mounted on the frame at pivot pin 22. At the
trailing end of the trailing arm 18, an axle is rigidly fastened to the trailing
arm. Smith discloses many embodiments with possibilities for fixing the
axle onto the end of the trailing arm. The axle could be square, round or
hexagonal with the round axle enclosed in a sleeve. The Examiner directs
our attention to the embodiment disclosed in Figs. 47 and 48 which shows
the axle 524 encased in a sleeve 544, 548 at the end of the trailing arm and
wherein a second sleeve 588 of elastic material is provided around the axle
inside the first sleeve 544, 548.
The other circular embodiments of Smith show various weldments
holding the two sides of the outer sleeve together. Many of the other
embodiments forego an elastomeric sleeve. Thus, it is our conclusion that
Smith, in his disclosure of fixing an axle in the rear section of a trailing arm,
discloses some examples where the axle is rigidly supported, and discloses
some examples where the axle is supported for limited movement as by an
elastomeric sleeve. Accordingly, it is our finding that the two methods of
axle attachment are art-recognized equivalents that can be used
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013