Appeal No. 97-2713
Application 08/373,069
providing Barkley’s watercraft with Douglas’ hollow elements
20, it would have been obvious to pass various plumbing and
conduit members though elements 20 as a convenient, protective
way to interconnect equipment in the superstructure 32 and in
the pontoon hulls 16. Accordingly, we will also sustain the §
103 rejection of claim 16.
However, we will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim
15. We find no teaching or suggestion in either Barkley or
Douglas which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in
the art to utilize a fuel conduit as a stiffening element as
required by claim 15.
With regard to the § 103 rejection of claims 8, 21 and
25, the examiner concludes that the teachings of Laukien would
have made it obvious to provide Barkley’s pontoon hulls 16
with ballast tanks to improve the stability of the vessel,
presumably by controlling the buoyancy of the hulls.
Appellant’s arguments supporting patentability of claim 8 as
set forth on pages 14 and 15 of the brief are unpersuasive.
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007