Appeal No. 2006-0178
Application No. 09/877,188
Nevertheless, the fact that the seat back end of a conventional snowmobile may extend up to the
rearward-most portion of the frame provides a reasonable expectation of success for a seat back
end which extends, for example, 1 mm behind the rearward-most portion of the frame. The 1
mm difference between these two seat back end dispositions is so small that an artisan would
have reasonably expected a disposition 1 mm behind the frame rear to possess the same
acceptable properties (e.g., comfort) as the conventional disposition (i.e., wherein the seat back
end extends up to, though not behind, the frame rear). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thus, from our perspective, the appellants’ admitted prior art appears to expressly show
(see Figure 1), or at less would have suggested based on a reasonable expectation of success (see
Figure 8), a conventional snowmobile wherein the back end of the seat extends behind a
rearward-most portion of the frame as required by independent claim 52. For this reason and
because Christensen describes his snowmobile as conventional except for the steering system or
suspension, there appears to be a prima facie case for concluding that it would have been obvious
for an artisan to provide Christensen’s snowmobile with the seat back end feature under
consideration in view of the admitted prior art disclosed in Figures 1 and 8 of appellants’
drawing. This provision would have been motivated by the desire for a snowmobile which
successfully and comfortably accommodates a rear-most rider (e.g., as shown in appellants’
Figure 1) who is larger than average.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007