Appeal 2007-2613
Application 10/660,239
ANALYSIS
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7 as unpatentable
over Smith in view of Kittle.
Apparently, Appellants admit that the tapered relationship in Kittle is
intended to prevent any relative movement between the axle and the wheel
hub. (See Br. p. 8, ll. 2-4). Appellants’ argument is that Smith, in contrast,
teaches a suspension in which slight movements of the axle with respect to
the trailing arm are permitted due to the elastomeric sleeve 588. However,
many of the other embodiments of Smith are directed to a circular axle
tightly held in a welded sleeve within the trailing arm. Thus, Smith is
suggestive not only of an axle trailing arm connection that allows limited
movement, but it is also suggestive of an axle rigidly held in the end of the
trailing arm by a sleeve which has been welded together to hold the axle
tightly compressed therein. Since Appellants have admitted that the tapered
relationship of Kittle is intended to prevent relative movement between the
axle and the wheel hub, in our view, it would have been obvious to use the
tapered relationship of sleeves as suggested by Kittle in many of the circular
axle embodiments of Smith.
Stated another way, as our findings above have indicated, the sleeves
containing the round axle embodiments of Smith represent an art-recognized
teaching of the interchangeability of rigid mounted versus elastomer
mounted axles. It would have been obvious to use the tapered teaching of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013