Appeal No. 2006-0178
Application No. 09/877,188
In light of the foregoing and because each of the independent claims on appeal is limited
to at least one of the above-discussed features of the appellants’ invention, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection based on the admitted prior art in view of Christensen.
Because the informalities of this rejection are not cured by Atherley, we also cannot sustain the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection based on the admitted prior art in view of Christensen and
further in view of Atherley.
It follows that we hereby reverse each of the rejections advanced by the examiner on this
appeal.
REMAND
As previously explained, the examiner has correctly found that the snowmobile of
Christensen possesses the appellants’ claimed feature wherein the steering position is disposed
forward of the forward-most drive track axle. Nevertheless, we reversed the examiner’s Section
103 rejection of claims reciting this feature because the examiner had inappropriately concluded
that it would have been obvious to provide the admitted prior art snowmobile with this feature of
Christensen. Notwithstanding this reversal, the record presents an issue as to whether certain of
these claims are unpatentable over Christensen alone or in combination with other prior art.
In particular, independent claim 118 is directed to a snowmobile having the above-
mentioned feature. Moreover, the only argument concerning claim 118 is restricted to this
feature. With respect to Christensen specifically, the appellants argue that “Christensen … can
not anticipate or render obvious claim 118 as there is no disclosure or suggestion of a steering
position disposed forward of the forward-most drive track axle” (Brief, page 74). This argument
is not well taken for reasons set forth earlier.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007