The alleged invention involved in this suit is a six-wheel truck construction in which two of the four rear wheels are mounted on a driven or live axle and the other two on a non-driven or dead axle. These axles are connected by rigid beams which are pivoted at their ends to arms connected with the live and dead axles respectively, the arms being fixedly connected to the live axle and pivotally connected to the dead axle. The truck body is supported at the centers of the beams. By this arrangement the dead axle may swing about the pivot points at which it is connected with the beam, thus producing what plaintiff calls a "floating" movement.
It is claimed in the application that "the improved mounting will in large measure absorb the shocks, jars and stresses which are ordinarily experienced in starting and stopping a truck under a heavy load, by allowing the live axle to start up or come to a stop before the dead axle, and also by allowing the dead axle to come to a stop or slow up independently of the live axle when run over a curb or other obstruction or backed into one, all without any sacrifice in durability and without affecting the normal action of the spring suspension means."
All claims were rejected by the Examiner on the ground that they are unpatentable over the prior art as shown by the following patents:
Hendrickson, 1,658,164, Feb. 7, 1928,
Porter, 1,855,868, April 26, 1932.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.