Ex Parte Dudding et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2012

11464390 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte ASHLEY T. DUDDING, LAWRENCE E. MILLER,
and WILLIAM WILSON
____________________

Appeal 2010-012410
Application 11/464,390
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and SCOTT A. DANIELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-012410
Application 11/464,390
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Ashley T. Dudding, Lawrence E. Miller, and William Wilson
(Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision
finally rejecting claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.
Claims 1-16 were canceled during prosecution. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a truck suspension incorporating
asymmetric leaf springs for enhancing roll stability of the vehicle. Spec. 1,
ll. 1-8 and fig. 1. Only claims 17 and 18 are on appeal. Claim 17,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
17. A suspension system for supporting a fore-and-aft
extending frame member on one side of a vehicle chassis on an
adjacent end of an axle of a vehicle, comprising:
(a) a frame bracket mounted on said frame member;
(b) a spring end support mounted on said frame
member in spaced relationship from said frame bracket;
(c) a composite leaf spring connected to said frame
bracket by way of a first composite leaf spring eye at a first end
of the composite leaf spring and connected to said spring end
support by way of a second composite leaf spring eye at a
second end of the composite leaf spring, said composite leaf
spring being clamped to said axle by axle clamping structure,
said composite leaf spring including
(i) a full length first leaf; and
(ii) a shorter, thicker second leaf;
(d) said first leaf having
(i) a military wrap eye positioned at said first end
of the composite leaf spring; and
(ii) a spring end support connection eye forming
the second composite leaf spring eye and positioned at said
Appeal 2010-012410
Application 11/464,390
3
second end of the composite leaf spring and connected to said
spring end support;
(e) said shorter, thicker second leaf having a frame
bracket connection eye forming the first composite leaf spring
eye, said frame bracket connection eye of said second leaf
having an outer diameter and positioned at said first end of the
composite leaf spring and connected to said frame bracket, said
military wrap eye of said full length first leaf being sufficiently
large enough to receive said outer diameter of said first
composite leaf spring eye formed by said frame bracket
connection eye of the shorter, thicker second leaf, said first
composite leaf spring eye being in interfitting relationship with
said military wrap eye of the first leaf such that said military
wrap eye of the full length first leaf wraps around the outside of
at least part of said first composite leaf spring eye;
(f) said composite leaf spring being divided into a first
cantilever limb extending from a center line of said vehicle axle
to said first end of the composite leaf spring and a second
cantilever limb extending from said center line of the vehicle
axle to said second end of the composite leaf spring;
(g) said full length first leaf providing redundancy for
said composite leaf spring;
(h) said second leaf being clamped to said axle by said
axle clamping structure and extending at least to said center line
of the vehicle axle but terminating short of said second end of
the composite leaf spring;
(i) said second leaf being substantially shorter and
substantially thicker than said first leaf;
(j) said first cantilever limb having a stiffness
substantially greater than a stiffness of said second cantilever
limb such that said composite leaf spring is asymmetric;
(k) said first cantilever limb providing significant
vertical load support for said vehicle chassis
(l) said second leaf having an end portion extending over
and spaced apart from said first leaf, said end potion being adjacent to
said axle and on the side thereof opposite said frame bracket, and an
air spring connected to said end portion extending in chassis
supporting relationship between said end portion and said frame
member.

App
App
appe
Scha
Wern

unpa
leaf
seco
App

pair
eal 2010-0
lication 11
The prio
al is:
eff
er
Claims 1
tentable o

Indepen
spring (8)
nd leaf (12
ellants’ Fig

Appellan
of chassis
12410
/464,390
r art relied
7 and 18 a
ver Werne
dent claim
including
), best und
ure 2 is re
ts’ Figure
side frame
REF
upon by t
US 3,8
EP 035
THE R
re rejecte
r and Scha
AN
17 recites
a full leng
erstood w
produced
2 illustrat
members
4
ERENCES
he Examin
02,718
2541 B1
EJECTIO
d under 35
eff.
ALYSIS
a suspens
th first leaf
ith referen
below:
es a side v
are shown

er in rejec
Apr
Ma
N
U.S.C. §
ion system
(11), and
ce to App
iew of the
supportin
ting the c
. 9, 1974
r. 10, 1993
103(a) as
having a
a shorter
ellants’ Fi
invention
g an axle
laims on

composite
thicker
gure 2.
wherein a
by fore-

Appeal 2010-012410
Application 11/464,390
5
and-aft extending leaf springs. Keeping Figure 2 in mind, claim 17, at
paragraph (e), requires inter alia the arrangement wherein
(e) …said military wrap eye (15) of said full length first
leaf (11) being sufficiently large enough to receive said outer
diameter of said first composite leaf spring eye formed by said
frame bracket connection eye (13) of the shorter, thicker second
leaf (12)
App. Br. Clms. Appx., Reference Numbers Added.
The Examiner determined that Werner (EP`541) lacked the limitation
in claim 17(e) where the eye (15) of the first leaf (11) is sized to wrap
around the outer diameter of the eye (13) of the second leaf (12) and
“instead shows the top leaf eye wrapping around the bottom leaf eye.” Ans.
5. The Examiner turned to Figure 1 of Schaeff and found that “Schaeff
teaches in figure 1 that the military wrap arrangement may be switched such
that the bottom leaf eye wraps around the top leaf eye” and reasoned that it
would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Werner to
alternatively have the “full leaf of EP'541 [Werner] wrapping around the eye
of the top or shorter leaf and would satisfy the recited limitation.” Id.
In response, Appellants draw our attention to the recitations of their
claim and argue that neither Werner nor Schaeff, alone or as combined,
disclose or teach Appellants’ claimed subject matter. App. Br. 9. Appellants
specifically argue that the Examiner’s findings are in error because neither
reference teaches a composite leaf spring having a first composite leaf spring
eye in a shorter, thicker leaf connecting the composite leaf spring to a frame
bracket, nor “a second composite leaf spring eye in a full length leaf thereof
connecting the composite leaf spring to a spring end support.” App. Br. 11.
The Examiner explains that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the
Appeal 2010-012410
Application 11/464,390
6
bottom, or full length leaf, of Werner to have included an eye sufficiently
large enough to receive an outer diameter of the top or shorter length leaf “in
order to provide an alternate way of interfitting the eyes to achieve
redundancy.” Ans. 8. Although Schaeff discloses that it was known to have
a bottom leaf spring 18 having a military wrapped eye around the thinner
upper leaf spring in Figure 1, as an alternative to an upper leaf spring having
an eye wrapped around an eye of a lower leaf spring, we find the Examiner’s
rejection insufficient to explain what in the prior art would have prompted a
person of ordinary skill in the art to form the thinner, full length leaf spring
with an outer military wrap eye encompassing the shorter thicker leaf spring.
The Examiner has not provided any findings that Werner or Schaeff
recognized a problem with the conventional wrapping of the thicker, shorter
leaf eye around the full length leaf eye as disclosed in both Werner and
Schaeff. Moreover, Werner explains that the arrangement where the eye of
the shorter, thicker leaf spring rod (5) is wrapped in an elliptical shape
around the full length leaf spring guide (4) as shown in Werner’s Figure 4 is
important where:
If the axle (20) tilts due to unequal deflection on both sides out
of a normal position, then the spring guide (4) and the parabolic
rod (5) bend and twist. This means that the middle of the
weakest end (17) of the parabolic rod or the front end of the
rolled end of the parabolic rod (5) opposite the middle of the
rolled end (14) of the spring guide (4) will shift. To enable this
shift, the front rolled end (17) of the parabolic rod, as per
Figure 4, has an elliptical or oval shape.
Werner at 6. Schaeff is also clear that the shorter thicker leaf spring is
provided wrapped around the thinner leaf spring leaving a clearance c so the
parabolic spring 18 need not transmit torsional forces through the spring eye
30 so that “the weak articulated terminus 30 of the parabolic spring 18 is not
Appeal 2010-012410
Application 11/464,390
7
loaded by torsional forces.” Schaeff at col. 4, ll.9-10. Without a persuasive
articulated rationale based on rational underpinnings for modifying the
reference as proposed by the Examiner, we fail to see why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to form the full length, thinner leaf
spring with a military eye wrap encompassing the shorter, thicker leaf spring
eye. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval
in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“rejections on
obvious grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”). Therefore,
the Examiner has not established, by evidence or technical reasoning, a
sufficient factual basis to reasonably support the conclusion that the teaching
of Schaeff would have led a skilled artisan to wrap the thinner, full length
spring guide 4 of Werner around the shorter, thicker parabolic rod 5 of
Werner, as claimed.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claim 17, nor its dependent claim 18, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Werner in view of Schaeff. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 18 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED

mls