Appeal No. 96-0005
Application 07/722,599
plurality of seats” beyond all reason. Terms in a claim should
be interpreted in a manner consistent with the specification and
construed as those skilled in the art would construe them (see In
re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6
USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, we can
think of no circumstances where the artisan, consistent with the
appellants’ specification, would construe the folded over cover
66 of Metcalf to form a plurality of seats. This being the case,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Metcalf.
Considering next the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf in view of Yamaoka, the
appellants argue that the jet propulsion unit of Yamaoka is in a
“conventional” boat and not in the combination of a powered and
unpowered hull as claimed. Such a contention is not persuasive
inasmuch as nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here,
the examiner has relied upon the primary reference to Metcalf for
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007