Ex Parte Kuhn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2007

10702724 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MICHAEL KUHN
________________

Appeal 2007-1215
Application 10/702,724
Technology Center 3600
________________

Decided: June 19, 2007
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, and
11-14. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A hydropneumatic suspension, comprising:
at least one suspension cylinder; at least one suspension accumulator;
a controllable, proportional and pilot-actuated valve connecting said
cylinder and said accumulator and being movable between an open position
providing fluid communication therethrough and a closed position blocking
fluid communication therethrough, said pilot-actuated valve being movable
Appeal 2007-1215
Application 10/702,724

2
to the closed position by a hydraulically operated control having a switching
valve, said hydraulically operated control tapping fluid pressure from
between said accumulator and said cylinder and relaying that fluid pressure
through said switching valve to an actuation side of said pilot-actuated
valve;
a reset spring on a reset side of said pilot-actuated valve biasing said
pilot-actuated valve toward said open position thereof, forming a neutral
position thereof; and
a connecting line providing fluid communication between said reset
side and a tank connection.
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Runkel US 5,246,247 Sep. 21, 1993
Brandenburger (DE ‘448) DE 4,242,448 C1 Mar. 31, 1994
Wallestad US 6,578,855 B2 Jun. 17, 2003
Stanfield US 6,641,155 B2 Nov. 4, 2003
Sorum US 6,669,217 B2 Dec. 30, 2003
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a hydropneumatic
suspension comprising a suspension cylinder, a suspension accumulator, and
a controllable, proportional, and pilot-actuated valve which connects the
cylinder and the accumulator. When the pilot-actuated valve is in the open
position it provides fluid communication between the suspension cylinder
and the suspension accumulator. The pilot-actuated valve is movable to a
closed position by a hydraulically operated control having a switching valve,
and the control taps fluid pressure from between the accumulator and the
cylinder and relays that fluid pressure through the switching valve to the
actuation side of the pilot-actuated valve.
Appeal 2007-1215
Application 10/702,724

3
Appealed claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wallestad in view of
DE ‘448(we rely on the English translation). Claim 7 stands rejected under
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated combination of references
further in view of Sorum, whereas claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under §
103 over the stated combination of references further in view of Stanfield.
Appellant does not set forth separate, substantive arguments for any
particular claim on appeal, although various recitations of appealed claims
are referred to at pages 10-12 of the principal Brief. Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1, and we will limit our
consideration to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Wallestad in view
of DE ‘448.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
At the outset, we note that there is a distinction in the arrangement of
components in the hydropneumatic suspension depicted in Appellant’s
Figure 1 and the figure of Wallestad. However, as explained by the
Examiner, such distinction is not reflected in the breadth of claim 1 on
Appeal 2007-1215
Application 10/702,724

4
appeal. As a result, Appellant’s arguments are not germane to subject matter
within the scope of the appealed claims.
Appellant contends that:
Claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over the Wallestad
and DE patents by the hydraulic control using fluid pressure
directly from between the accumulator and the cylinder to move
the pilot-actuated valve, in the form of a proportional valve, to
its closed position against the bias of a reset spring. (Emphasis
added.)
(Principal Br. 4, last sentence). However, as pointed out by the Examiner,
appealed claim 1 does not require any such use of fluid pressure directly
between the accumulator and the cylinder. Moreover, we find no error in the
Examiner’s reasoning that the node positioned above check valve 62 of
Wallestad is, in fact, located between suspension cylinder 12 and
accumulator 26. Also, we agree with the Examiner that the fluid pressure
from pump 34 at the node above valve 62 is relayed through the switching
valve 68 to the actuation side of pilot actuated valve 28. Although Appellant
further argues that “the Wallestad patent indicates that the pressure from
pump 34 is used for the pilot pressure for valve 28 and not the pressure
between accumulator 26 and cylinder 12” (principal Br. 6, second para.), we
note that pump 34 is also between the cylinder and the accumulator and, as
explained by the Examiner, provides the fluid pressure that is tapped at the
node above valve 62.
Appellant sets forth certain differences between the claimed
suspension system and the one set forth in DE ‘448. However, we concur
Appeal 2007-1215
Application 10/702,724

5
with the Examiner that DE ‘448 simply provides additional evidence that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to tap the fluid
pressure of Wallestad’s system in any of a number of locations “dependent
upon such well[-]known factors as specific vehicle undercarriage design
limitations or spatial constraints etc.” (Answer 5, first para.).
As noted above, Appellant does not provide different arguments
against the § 103 rejections citing Sorum and Stanfield.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the applied
prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
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) (2006).
AFFIRMED

clj

Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P.
1300 19th Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036