Appeal 2006-3327
Application 10/137,582
ISSUE
Appellant admits the concept of a pivotable saddle is not new (Br. 6) and
admits that his own prior art patent (Hanagan) discloses a tandem motorcycle
saddle with backrest supporting pods secured to the platform of the saddle (Br. 5).
Appellant contends that he is the first to conceive of combining the two concepts
so that a saddle may be pivoted while having a backrest fully supported thereon in
its erect position (Br. 6). Appellant contends that Uchida contains no teaching or
suggestion to use its pivotable saddle concept with the tandem saddle of Hanagan,
and Hanagan contains no teaching or suggestion to use its tandem saddle with
backrest supporting pods on the pivotable saddle of Uchida (Br. 4-5).
The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill
in the art to have mounted the platform of Hanagan such that it is hinged, as in
Uchida, to allow access to components and storage underneath the seat (Answer 3).
The Examiner further determined that it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to have provided the hinged, tandem seat of Uchida with
conventional motorcycle backrests, such as taught in Hanagan, to provide added
comfort to the occupant (Answer 3).
The issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred
in finding sufficient teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the teachings
of Hanagan and Uchida such that it would have led one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to the claimed invention.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013