Appeal No. 96-0005
Application 07/722,599
the hinged cover to, on the one hand, close to prevent damage to
the powered smaller watercraft and, on the other hand, serve as a
seat in the open position without providing any evidence or
factual basis whatsoever to support this assertion. It therefore
follows we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 62
and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we make the
following new rejections.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the Japanese publication in view of the
admitted prior art. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in this art to utilize the “conventional” jet
propelled type of watercraft of the admitted prior art in the
embodiment of Figs. 11-15 of the Japanese publication if, for no
other reason, to achieve the advantage of ease of availability.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the embodiment of Figs. 11-15 of the Japanese
publication in view of Metcalf. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in this art to provide the larger
watercraft 25 of the Japanese publication with a removable cover
over the berthing area in order to achieve the advantage of
providing “a smooth unbroken deck surface for use by passengers”
-15-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007