Appeal No. 96-0005
Application 07/722,599
a teaching of the combination of a powered and unpowered hull and
upon Yamaoka for a teaching that propellers (see, e.g., the
embodiment of Fig. 12) and jet propulsion units (see the
embodiments of Figs. 18 and 20) are art recognized alternatives
to propel watercraft. From our perspective, a combined
consideration of Metcalf and Yamaoka would have fairly suggested
to the artisan to provide the small powered watercraft of Metcalf
with a jet propulsion unit as a motive means in view of Yamaoka’s
teaching of such an arrangement in Figs. 18 and 20. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined disclosures of Metcalf and
Yamaoka.
Treating now the rejection of claims 19, 20, 36 and 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf in view of
Babb and the Japanese publication, the appellants concede that
Babb teaches a winch but nevertheless question why someone
skilled in the art would want to “winch” the smaller watercraft
102 of Metcalf into its berthing area in the larger watercraft.
Noting that the conclusion of obviousness may be made from
"common knowledge and common sense" of the person of ordinary
skill in the art (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ
545, 549 (CCPA 1969)), we are of the opinion that it would have
been self-evident to the artisan as a matter of common sense that
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007