Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
1. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-18, 25-26, 31 and 34-36 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Herzhauser in view Price.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellant
and by the Examiner concerning this rejection, we refer to the Brief and the
Reply Brief, and to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition
thereof.
Appellant separately argues claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 18, and 26.
Accordingly we address Appellant’s arguments regarding those claims in
our opinion below.
OPINION
CLAIM 1
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under § 103(a) over Herzhauser in
view of Price. The Examiner found that Herzhauser does not disclose
monitoring the rate of water collection in the holding tank (Answer 4). The
Examiner found that Price discloses monitoring the rate of water collection
in a bilge (Answer 5). The Examiner concluded it would have been prima
facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “provide to the holding
tank, pump and switch of Herzhauser a monitor, timer and alarm similar to
those discussed in column 3, lines 17-36 of Price so that in Herzhauser the . .
. rate of water collection in said holding tank can be monitored . . . to
indicate to the boat owner when the packing [i.e., stuffing] box is leaking too
much” (Answer 5-6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013