Appeal No. 2003-2034
Application No. 09/667,727
operation of the riding simulation apparatus of Honda as simply a
distinctly different alternative to the particular arrangement
and operation of the Koyama simulator, and vice versa. Clearly,
the Honda simulator is moved by hydraulic cylinder actuators 3
to, for example, rotate the vehicle about the roll axis line X.
In contrast, the rider of the Koyama simulator rocks a four-link
mechanism in a lateral direction (Figs. 3 and 4), with the
simulator returning to its neutral position under the influence
of torsional rubber springs. Thus, notwithstanding the inclusion
of two links 150, 152 at the front of the Koyama simulator (Figs.
1 and 2), we nevertheless do not perceive that one having
ordinary skill in the art would have derived a suggestion
therefrom to selectively rework the simulator of Honda, as
proposed by the examiner, to effect the apparatus set forth in
appellants' claim 3. It is apparent to us that only reliance
upon impermissible hindsight and appellants' own disclosure, and
not the applied prior art, would have allowed one to alter the
Honda simulator based upon the Koyama teaching. It is for these
reasons that the obviousness rejection cannot be sustained.5
5 In the response to the argument section of the answer
(pages 3 and 4), the examiner departs from the basis set forth in
the final rejection and refers to Fig. 22 of Koyama and Figs. 3
and 4 of Honda. Fig. 22 of Koyama simply teaches a link-length
(continued...)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007