Appeal No. 95-2081
Application 07/825,778
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21,
27, 30, 33 and 38 under § 103 based on Small.
We next review the examiner's rejection of claims 2,
4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 34 under § 103
as
being unpatentable over Small in view of Sherman. Even if we
accept the examiner's position that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of
tunnels in the powerboat of Small based on the teachings of
Sherman (Figure 8), we find nothing in the combined teachings
of these references which provides for the deficiencies of
Small as noted above in our treatment of independent claim 1.
Since independent claim 2 includes the same limitations as
independent claim 1, except that in claim 2 each tunnel has a
forward vertical wall being approximately one inch in height,
it follows that the examiner's rejection of claim 2, and the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007