Appeal No. 97-1142
Application 08/260,831
seasonably challenged by appellants is also improper. See
M.P.E.P. 2144.03 (“. . .the examiner should not be obliged to
spend time to produce documentary proof [of facts which are
capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being
“well-known” in the art]. . . . If the applicant traverses such
an assertion the examiner should cite a reference in support of
his or her position.”(emphasis added)).
In the present instance, the examiner has failed to provide
a sufficient factual basis to support his conclusion that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. We are therefore constrained to reverse the
standing § 103 rejection. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154
USPQ 173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
New Rejections Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Trumbull ‘256 in view of Noble and Hayes.
With respect to claim 1, Trumbull ‘256 discloses a motion
base including a plurality of actuators 24, 26, 28 supporting a
platform 120, a passenger holding means 12 secured to the
platform, video image means including a screen 20 and a motion
picture projector 18 attached to the platform for projecting an
image on the screen, and a control system (Figure 6) for
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007