Ex parte KOBAYASHI et al. - Page 4




                Appeal No. 96-0005                                                                                                            
                Application 07/722,599                                                                                                        


                the opinion that it would have been obvious to power the smaller                                                              
                watercraft of Metcalf by means of a jet propulsion unit in view                                                               
                of the teachings of Yamaoka.                                                                                                  
                         Claims 19, 20, 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                                              
                 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf in view of Babb and the                                                              
                Japanese publication.  The examiner also believes that it would                                                               
                have been obvious to provide the watercraft of Metcalf with a                                                                 
                winch in view of the teachings of Babb and a curved guiding area                                                              
                in view of the teachings of the Japanese publication.                                                                         
                         Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being                                                            
                anticipated by the Japanese publication.4                                                                                     
                         Claims 62 and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                                                             
                being unpatentable over Metcalf.5                                                                                             
                         The examiner’s rejections are explained on pages 4-8 of the                                                          
                answer.  Rather than reiterate the arguments of the appellants                                                                
                and the examiner in support of their respective positions                                                                     
                reference is made to the brief, reply brief, answer and                                                                       
                supplemental answer for the full exposition thereof.                                                                          



                         4This rejection was set forth as a new ground of rejection                                                           
                in the answer.                                                                                                                
                         5This rejection was set forth as a new ground of rejection                                                           
                in the answer.                                                                                                                
                                                                    -4-                                                                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007