Ex Parte Fecteau et al - Page 7



                Appeal No. 2006-0178                                                                                                            
                Application No. 09/877,188                                                                                                      

                         Although the examiner’s finding is correct, his obviousness conclusion derived from this                               
                finding is erroneous.  As previously indicated, the examiner concludes that it would have been                                  
                obvious for an artisan to provide the admitted prior art snowmobile with a steering position                                    
                forward of the forward-most drive track axle in accordance with Christensen in order to “help                                   
                provide a stable steering system” (answer, page 6).  While the objective of Christensen’s                                       
                invention is indeed to provide a stable steering system (e.g., see lines 37-39 in column 1), the                                
                reference contains no teaching or suggestion that the steering position and axle disposition                                    
                shown in Figure 3 helps to achieve this stable steering objective.  Instead, it is the particular                               
                steering system or suspension designed by patentee which provides the desired stability (e.g., see                              
                lines 39-60 in column 1 and lines 12-14 in column 2).                                                                           
                         Thus, an artisan would not have been motivated to provide the admitted prior art with the                              
                steering position and axle disposition shown in Figure 3 of Christensen in order to “help provide                               
                a stable steering system” (answer, page 6) as urged by the examiner.  Again, this is because the                                
                Christensen patent contains no teaching or suggestion that the disposition in question helps to                                 
                achieve patentee’s stable steering system objective.  The examiner’s obviousness conclusion still                               
                would be improper even if we were to assume that the disposition shown in Figure 3 helps to                                     
                stabilize Christensen’s steering system.  This is because the steering system designs of                                        
                Christensen and the admitted prior art are entirely different.  Therefore, no reasonable                                        
                expectation exists for believing that a feature helpful in stabilizing the Christensen steering                                 
                system would be successful in stabilizing the admitted prior art steering system.  See In re                                    
                O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-4, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (obviousness requires a                                    
                reasonable expectation of success).                                                                                             


                                                                       7                                                                        



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007