Appeal No. 97-2713
Application 08/373,069
above-water and underwater units. With regard to claim 20,
there is no express or inherent disclosure in Barkley of a
signal transmitting means extending through the patentee’s
hydraulic rams 58. Since these limitation are not met by
Barkley, we cannot agree that Barkley constitutes a proper
anticipatory reference for the subject matter of claims 12 and
20.
We also cannot sustain the § 102(b) rejection of method
claims 26, 32 and 33. Claim 26 expressly recites the step of
maintaining the supporting part of the watercraft below the
surface of the water. Thus, in contrast to claim 1, claim 26
requires the supporting part to be underwater. Since this
limitation is not expressly or inherently met by Barkley, we
cannot agree that Barkley constitutes a proper anticipatory
for the subject matter of claim 26 and, hence, for the subject
matter of dependent claims 32 and 33.
With regard to the § 103 rejection of claims 3, 13, 15
and 16, the examiner concludes that the teachings of Douglas
would have made it obvious to provide either of Barkley’s
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007