Appeal No. 2006-0178
Application No. 09/877,188
disposed over the engine at an angle ε of less than 45° from vertical and wherein the steering
position is disposed forward of the forward-most drive track axle. However, the examiner finds
that Christensen discloses a snowmobile having these features and concludes that it would have
been obvious for an artisan to provide the admitted prior art snowmobile with these features in
order to “help provide a stable steering system” (answer, page 6). Regarding certain other
features claimed by the appellants (e.g., the previously mentioned claim feature wherein the first
seat position is disposed less than 590 mm behind the forward-most drive track axle), the
examiner’s obviousness conclusion appears to be based on the proposition that “discovering an
optimum value of a result effective variable … involves only routine skill in the art” (answer,
page 6).
With respect to this last mentioned point, it is generally correct to conclude that it would
have been obvious for an artisan to develop workable or even optimum values for art-recognized,
result-effective parameters. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37
(Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Nevertheless, it is clear that this
generality does not support the examiner’s obviousness conclusion regarding the here claimed
feature wherein a first seat position is disposed less than 590 mm behind the forward-most drive
track axle. This is because the corresponding disposition of the first seat position in the
appellants’ admitted prior art snowmobile is 905 mm (i.e., A+D of the conventional snowmobile
shown in Figure 8).1 Manifestly, the appellants’ claimed dimension is far outside the
1 It is appropriate to emphasize that the appellants’ claimed first seat position cannot be reasonably interpreted as
being located at any point on the snowmobile seat. This is because the phrase “seat position” has been expressly
disclosed by the appellants (e.g., see the first two paragraphs on specification page 8 as well as Figures 9 and 10 of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007