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