Appeal No. 2006-0178
Application No. 09/877,188
corresponding dimension of the admitted prior art. It is well settled that the discovery of
optimum values, which are far outside the prior art values and not in anyway suggested by the
prior art as here, likely would not have been obvious. In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907, 175 USPQ
93, 95 (CCPA 1972).
It follows that we can not agree with the examiner’s obviousness conclusion concerning
the above-discussed disposition of the first seat position as claimed by appellants.
We also can not agree with the examiner’s above-noted finding that Christensen discloses
the here-claimed feature wherein the steering shaft is disposed over the engine at an angle ε of
less than 45° from vertical. In support of his finding, the examiner refers to patentee’s teaching
that “axes p are at an angle t which may be approximately 25° more or less” (column 2, lines
44-45). However, this angle relates to axes p of steering shafts 11,12 which are connected to skis
19, 20 and are disposed along the outer sides of the snowmobile rather than over the engine as
claimed (see lines 30-49 in column 2 as well as Figures 2 and 3 of the drawing). While these
steering shafts are ultimately connected to patentee’s steering handle 10, the specifics of this
connection are unknown since it is referred to by Christensen merely as “conventional linkage,
not shown” (column 2, lines 31-32).
Apparently, the examiner believes that this conventional linkage includes a steering shaft
disposed over the engine at an angle less than 45° as claimed by appellants. As reflected by our
discussion above, there is no evidentiary basis for such a belief. We are constrained, therefore,
the drawing) as particular positions on a snowmobile that are adapted to function as the seat position for a standard
rider having specific dimensions. See generally Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2005).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007