Ex Parte Revill et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201310537566 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/537,566 11/09/2005 Christopher Paul Revill 1316K-000028/NP 3569 27572 7590 02/26/2013 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 828 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 EXAMINER BECK, KAREN JANE AMORES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3616 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER PAUL REVILL and RAYMOND ANDREW MUNDAY ____________________ Appeal 2010-006721 Application 10/537,566 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: LINDA E. HORNER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD and BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006721 Application 10/537,566 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8-12, 17 and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Claimed Subject Matter The claimed subject matter is directed to a suspension system for a vehicle, the suspension system providing both a “damping and stiffness system” and a “resilient support means” that is “functionally separate” from the damping and stiffness system. Spec., p. 1, ll. 1-4; p. 9, l. 30. Claims 1 and 6 are the independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A vehicle suspension system having a damping and stiffness system for a vehicle, the vehicle including a vehicle body and a first pair and a second pair of diagonally spaced wheel assemblies, the first pair of diagonally spaced wheel assemblies including at least one front left wheel assembly and at least one back right wheel assembly, the second pair of diagonally spaced wheel assemblies including at least one front right wheel assembly and at least one back left wheel assembly, the vehicle suspension system also including front and rear vehicle resilient support means between the vehicle body and the wheel assemblies for resiliently supporting the vehicle above the wheel assemblies, the damping and stiffness system including: at least one wheel ram located between each wheel assembly and the vehicle body, each ram including at least a compression chamber; a load distribution unit interconnected between the compression chambers of the front left, front right, back left and back right wheel rams, the load distribution unit including first and second piston rod assemblies, first, second, third and fourth system volumes and first and second modal resilience volumes, Appeal 2010-006721 Application 10/537,566 3 the first piston rod assembly defining first, second, third and fourth effective areas, the second piston rod assembly defining fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth effective areas, the first and second piston rod assemblies being located within the load distribution unit such that each piston rod assembly can rotate about and slide along a major axis of the piston rod assembly, the first effective area defines a movable wall of the first system volume such that as the first piston rod assembly slides along its major axis, the volume of the first system volume varies, the second effective area defines a moveable wall of the second system volume, the third effective area defines a movable wall of the first modal resilience volume. the fourth effective area defines a movable wall of the second modal resilience volume, the fifth effective area defines a movable wall of the third system volume such that as the second piston rod assembly slides along its major axis, the volume of the third system volume varies, the sixth effective area defines a moveable wall of the fourth system volume, the seventh effective area defines a movable wall of the first modal resilience volume, and the eighth effective area defines a movable wall of the second modal resilience volume, the first system volume increasing in volume proportionately to the decrease in volume of the second system volume with motion of the first piston rod assembly, the third system volume increasing in volume proportionately to the decrease in volume of the fourth system volume with motion of the second piston rod assembly, the volume of the first modal resilience volume decreasing proportionately to the increase in volume of the first and third system volumes with motion of the first and second piston rod assemblies, the volume of the second modal resilience volume decreasing proportionately to the increase in volume of the second and fourth system volumes, the first and fourth system volumes being connected to the compression chambers of the wheel rams associated with one of the pairs of diagonally spaced wheel assemblies, the second and third system volumes being connected to the compression chambers of the wheel rams associated with the other pair of diagonally spaced wheel assemblies, the damping Appeal 2010-006721 Application 10/537,566 4 and stiffness system thereby providing substantially zero warp stiffness; and wherein the vehicle is primarily supported by the vehicle resilient support means which is functionally separate from the damping and stiffness system. References The Examiner relied upon the following prior art references: Heyring ‘098 US 6,270,098 B1 Aug. 7, 2001 Heyring ‘371 US 6,761,371 B1 July 13, 2004 Kobayashi US 7,210,688 B2 May 1, 2007 Rejections Appellants seek review of the following rejections (App. Br. 9):1 Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-12 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heyring '098 and Heyring, '371; and Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heyring '098, Heyring, '371, and Kobayashi. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8-12 and 18 as a group. App. Br. 10. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 4, 6, and 8-12 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appellants rely on the same arguments made with respect to the first ground of rejection as the basis for patentability of claim 18. As such, the outcome of this appeal turns on our analysis of the first ground of rejection as it pertains to claim 1. 1 Citations to “App. Br. ___” are to the indicated page in the Appeal Brief filed April 14, 2009. Appeal 2010-006721 Application 10/537,566 5 The Examiner found that Heyring ‘098 discloses the claimed hydraulic damping and stiffness system, and that Heyring ‘371 discloses the claimed resilient support means that primarily supports the vehicle and is functionally separate from a damping and stiffness system. Ans. 3-6. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the hydraulic damping and stiffness system disclosed in Heyring '098 to also include a vehicle resilient support system, such as the coil or leaf springs disclosed in Heyring '371. Ans. 6.2 The rationale provided for the proposed combination was that adding Heyring ‘371’s resilient support system to the damping system of Heyring ‘098 would provide independent support means capable of supporting the entire weight of the vehicle. Id. The Examiner explained this rationale by stating that suspension systems with both a damping system and an additional or separate support system were old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made, and are often used for redundancy as a fail-safe in case a component fails and insures continued operation. Ans. 10. We conclude that the Examiner established a prima facie case of unpatentability that shifts the burden of going forward to the Appellants, who must produce evidence and/or argument rebutting the case of unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We review the obviousness rejection for error based upon the issues, arguments and evidence identified by Appellants. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 2 Citations to “Ans. ___” are to the indicated page of the Examiner’s Answer filed August 3, 2009. Appeal 2010-006721 Application 10/537,566 6 Appellants do not allege error in the Examiner’s findings of fact concerning the disclosures of the references. Appellants’ basic argument in support of the alleged error in the rejections is that Heyring '098 “teaches that ordinary springs are unnecessary.” Reply Br. 4.3 However, Appellants fail to cite any passage in Heyring ‘098 containing such a teaching. Based on their argued interpretation of Heyring ‘098, Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to combine the support system disclosed in Heyring '371 with the damping system disclosed in Heyring '098 because a separate support system is “not needed” in the Heyring ‘098 suspension. Reply Br. 2. The basis for the argued interpretation of Heyring ‘098 that ordinary springs are unnecessary or not needed in the Heyring ‘098 system is that a prior patent assigned to the same assignee as Heyring ‘098, that is, U.S. Patent No. 5,447,332 (the “‘332 patent”), states that the object of the invention disclosed in the ‘332 patent was to eliminate the use of conventional spring components. App. Br. 11-12. Neither the ‘332 patent nor any other patent in this “technology family” (App. Br. 11) was applied against the rejected claims. The objective of the ‘332 patent and Appellants’ summary of the evolution of the technology is not persuasive that the Examiner erred in her interpretation and application of the applied references, Heyring ‘098 and Heyring ‘371. We also note that Appellants’ historical summary and argument does not refer to or address the Examiner’s interpretation and application of Heyring ‘371. 3 Citations to “Reply Br. ___” are to the indicated page in the Reply Brief filed January 27, 2010. Appeal 2010-006721 Application 10/537,566 7 Appellants state that the claimed invention calls for two “functionally separate” systems. App. Br. 10. One of the systems is the “vehicle resilient support means,” which is shown in Figure 1 as springs 27, 28, 29 and 30 and which is described more broadly in the Specification.4 The second system is the “damping and stiffness system,” the primary function of which, as its name suggests, is to provide damping and stiffness for the vehicle's suspension system.5 The Examiner found that the support system and the damping system in Heyring ‘371 are “functionally separate.” Ans. 6. Appellants have not directed us to any language in the applied references or provided persuasive analysis that establishes that the Examiner’s finding was in error. Appellants also argue several reasons why, in their view, combining a support system with a damping system is “irrational” (App. Br. 16) or not “sensible” (id. at 17). They assert that adding a vehicle support system, such as coil or leaf springs, adds weight and cost. Nonetheless, as found by the Examiner, Heyring ‘371 provides both a vehicle support system and a damping system, establishing that whatever redundancy, cost, or weight may be added, it is known to use such systems together. Appellants argue that components from Heyring ‘098 could not be used in the “present invention.” App. Br. 19. The Examiner’s rejection is based on the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and two prior patents, and whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant technology. Whether components from the Heyring 4 See, Spec. 10, l. 30 – 11, l. 6. 5 Id. Appeal 2010-006721 Application 10/537,566 8 ‘098 system could be used in the claimed invention is irrelevant and not persuasive of error. Finally, Appellants argue that there is “no teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine Heyring '371 with Heyring '098” (Reply Br. 2) and that the Examiner has not provided “some objective reason” or “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to combine the teachings of the references and support the conclusion of obviousness (Id. at 3). As the Appellants point out, the Examiner did not cite a reference of other evidence to support the “old,” “well known,” and “often used” rationale for using both a support system and other suspension components. Reply Br. 4. However, Heyring ‘371, cited and applied by the Examiner, provides both a vehicle support system and a damping system, establishing that it is known to use such systems together. Also, the Examiner’s objective reason of providing redundancy is consistent with the use of both a support system and a damping system in Heyring ‘371. Upon consideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellants’ contentions and the preponderance of relevant evidence, we are of the opinion that Appellants have not rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness established by the Examiner. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 6, 8- 12, 17 and 18. Appeal 2010-006721 Application 10/537,566 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation