Appeal No. 96-0005
Application 07/722,599
the provision of a winch as taught by Babb on the larger
unpowered watercraft of Metcalf would allow the berthing of
smaller powered watercraft 102 in a more controlled and slow
manner than would be possible utilizing the propulsion unit of
the smaller watercraft, thus minimizing the risk of damage to
either the smaller or larger watercraft of Metcalf. Therefore,
we are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have found it obvious to provide the larger watercraft of
Metcalf with a winch such as that disclosed by Babb at 22 in
order to achieve this self-evident advantage.
With respect to claim 20 the appellant argues that:
[t]he Examiner contends that Yammer [sic, Yanmar], the
Japanese publication, shows curved sides. This is
true, but in Yammer [sic, Yanmar] the sides are
flexible and the small hull is paced the larger hull by
deforming the floating hull rather than by merely
guiding the boat into it. [Brief, page 9.]
We find nothing in the Japanese publication which states that the
larger hull is deformed as the appellants contend. In any event,
even if this is the case, it takes nothing away from the fact
that the Japanese publication teaches the provision of curved
sides and we share the examiner’s view that it would have been
obvious to make the wall of the berthing area of Metcalf curved
in view of this teaching by the Japanese publication.
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007