Appeal No. 95-2081
Application 07/825,778
tions, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 28, filed December
7, 1993) and reply brief (Paper No. 30, filed April 22, 1994)
for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the re-
spective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have made the determina-
tions which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims
1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 27, 30, 33 and 38 under § 103
as being unpatentable over Small, we note that independent
claim 1 on appeal sets forth, inter alia, a tunnel located on
the exterior of the hull of a powerboat and a surface-piercing
propeller within the tunnel (see particularly Figures 1 and
12), with the height of the tunnel forward of the vicinity of
the propeller diminishing to a point approximately one inch
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007