Ex Parte Ichihashi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2004

09667727 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SATORU ICHIHASHI, MASAYOSHI KAI, RYUICHI OKAMURA,
KUNIKAZU NEGISHI and TAKESHI MASAKI
____________
Appeal No. 2003-2034
Application No. 09/667,727
____________
HEARD: JANUARY 6, 2004
____________
Before COHEN, FRANKFORT, and PATE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claim 3, the
sole claim remaining in the application.

Appellants' invention pertains to an apparatus for
simulating a ride on a vehicle in a form of a motorcycle. A
basic understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of claim 3, a copy of which appears in the APPENDIX to
the main brief (Paper No. 11).
Appeal No. 2003-2034
Application No. 09/667,727
1 Our understanding of this foreign language document is
derived from a reading of a machine-assisted translation thereof
prepared in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
copy of the translation is appended to this opinion.
2
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Koyama et al. 6,234,800 May 22, 2001
(Koyama) (filed Jun. 21, 1999)
Ichizawa et al. 7-92897 Apr. 7, 1995
(Japan) (Honda)1
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Honda in view of Koyama.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the final
rejection and the answer (Paper Nos. 9 and 13), while the
complete statement of appellants' argument can be found in the
main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 11 and 15).
Appeal No. 2003-2034
Application No. 09/667,727
2 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the Board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered
appellants' specification and claims, the applied teachings,2 and
the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
The examiner is of the view that the phrase in line 9 of
claim 3, "in an erected posture", is indefinite (page 2, Paper
Appeal No. 2003-2034
Application No. 09/667,727
4
No. 9 and page 3, Paper No. 13). We disagree for the following
reasons.
In light of the underlying specification and drawings, it is
quite apparent to this panel of the Board that one skilled in the
art at issue would readily comprehend that the linear actuators 7
are oriented in an erect (upstanding) posture in the apparatus,
as visually discernible in Figs. 1 through 3. Akin to
appellants' point of view (main brief, pages 5 through 7 and
reply brief, pages 1 and 2)), we are of the opinion that the term
"in an erected posture", in the context of the claim, clearly
means or denotes that the pair of linear actuators are upstanding
in orientation, as opposed to being horizontally positioned, for
example. Thus, the phrase "in an erected posture" is an
understandable limitation which does not render claim 3
indefinite.
The obviousness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Honda in view of Koyama.
Appeal No. 2003-2034
Application No. 09/667,727
3 In particular, the claim language, as noted, requires
linear actuators coupled to a lower portion of a front column
mounting a handle.
4 The patentee Koyama discloses intermediate links 150, 152,
not linear actuators.
5
Appellants' claim 3 sets forth an apparatus for simulating a
ride on a vehicle in a form of a motorcycle with the feature,
inter alia, of each of a pair of linear actuators being coupled
to a lower portion of a front column mounting a handle on an
upper end thereof for steering.
The examiner acknowledges in the final rejection (Paper No.
9) that the Honda patent fails to disclose linear actuators
attached to the front lower surface of a vehicle.3 However, as
perceived by the examiner, Koyama's teaching of two actuators
150, 1524 attached to a lower front portion of a vehicle body
(Figs. 1 through 4) would have made it obvious to attach the
linear actuators of Honda to the front of the vehicle (pages 2
and 3, Paper No. 9 and pages 3 through 5, Paper No. 13). As
explained below, we do not share this point of view.
From our perspective, one having ordinary skill in the art
would have readily appreciated the overall configuration and
Appeal No. 2003-2034
Application No. 09/667,727
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
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
Appeal No. 2003-2034
Application No. 09/667,727
5(...continued)
adjusting mechanism. As we see it, one of ordinary skill in the
art would still understand this form of Koyama simulator to be
rocked to its lateral positions, as earlier discussed, unlike the
Honda simulator. The Honda simulator of Figs. 3 and 4 clearly
reveals an arrangement of horizontally oriented hydraulic
cylinders 3, not the claimed actuators disposed in an erected
posture.
7
In summary, this panel of the Board has not sustained any of
the rejections on appeal.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
WILLIAM F. PATE, III )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ICC/lbg
Appeal No. 2003-2034
Application No. 09/667,727
8
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036