Ex Parte Saranditis - Page 6

                   Appeal 2006-2171                                                                                                 
                   Application 10/840,715                                                                                           

                           Appellant argues lack of motivation for the combination of Price’s                                       
                   bilge water pump monitoring with Herzhauser’s stuffing box water                                                 
                   containment and removal method (Br. 7).  Specifically, Appellant argues                                          
                   Herzhauser discloses pumping out the water from the holding tank “in the                                         
                   usual manner” which indicates that no efforts are made to monitor the rate of                                    
                   water accumulation (Br. 7).  Appellant contends that Herzhauser’s disclosure                                     
                   to remove water from sump 46 in the “usual manner” actually teaches away                                         
                   from “monitoring water collected exclusively from a packing box” (Br. 7).                                        
                           Appellant further contends that Price merely teaches removing bilge                                      
                   water which may accumulate from various sources (i.e., rain, ocean spray,                                        
                   etc.), not necessarily from a stuffing box such that monitoring bilge water                                      
                   accumulation will not necessarily indicate that the stuffing box requires                                        
                   maintenance (Br. 7, 8).  Based upon this contention, Appellant argues that                                       
                   Price neither discloses nor suggests a method or apparatus for monitoring                                        
                   water leakage from a stuffing box of an inboard engine propeller shaft (Br.                                      
                   7).                                                                                                              
                           Furthermore, Appellant contends that his invention permits the quick                                     
                   and easy determination of whether a stuffing box is leaking which was not                                        
                   possible prior to Appellant’s invention (Br. 8).                                                                 
                           The Examiner responds that Herzhauser discloses that water leaking                                       
                   through the stuffing box into sump 46 is leaking into the bilge of the marine                                    
                   craft (Answer 13).  The Examiner further states that “Price suggests                                             
                   monitoring leakage into a bilge whether it be through stuffing box leakage or                                    
                   through some other type of leakage” (Answer 13-14).  The Examiner finds                                          
                   that Price monitors the water leakage to prevent “catastrophic results due to                                    
                   continuous running of the bilge pump” (Answer 14).  The Examiner further                                         

                                                                 6                                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013