Appeal 2007-2817
Application 11/049,176
unpatentable over Stewart and Berckhan, and claim 22 as unpatentable over
Berckhan and Omundson.
Appellants further contend that “Berckhan does not disclose or suggest a
subframe with a ‘strut rod having a first end coupled to said subframe and a second
end coupled to a vehicle frame’” (Appeal Br. 7). The Examiner found that the
torsion rod 61 of Berckhan is equivalent to a strut rod because “the torsion rod 61
of Berckhan resists pressure in the direction of its length between a vertical
member 31 and the bracket 63” (Answer 5-6). We disagree.
The customary meaning of a torsion bar or rod is a part of an automotive
suspension consisting of a bar that twists to maintain stability (Finding of Fact 10),
whereas the customary definition of a strut is a structural element used to brace or
strengthen a framework by resisting longitudinal compression (Finding of Fact 11).
Therefore, torsion bars do not customarily act as a strut by resisting pressure in the
direction of their length, but rather resist torque. Nowhere in Berckhan is there any
disclosure or suggestion that the torsion rod 61 acts as a strut, nor has the Examiner
provided any evidence to support his assertion that item 61 of Berckhan is anything
more that a torsion rod as disclosed.
REMAND
We remand this application to the Examiner for reconsideration, in view of
our claim interpretation discussed supra. More specifically, we remand this
application to the Examiner to consider whether evidence exists to support a
finding that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that casting
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013