Ex Parte Revill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

10537566 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

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