Ex parte KOBAYASHI et al. - Page 16




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


          as taught by Metcalf in column 4, lines 11-12.  As to claim 16,             
          the artisan would as a matter of common sense (see In re Bozek,             
          416 F.2d at 1390, 163 USPQ at 549) found it obvious to provide              
          the passenger compartment 7 of the admitted prior art with plural           
          seats.                                                                      
               Claims 19, 20, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103            
          as being unpatentable over the Japanese publication in view of              
          Babb.  It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in               
          this art to provide the larger watercraft 25 of the embodiment of           
          Figs. 11-15 of the Japanese publication with a winch as taught by           
          Babb at 22 in order to achieve the self-evident advantage of                
          allowing the berthing of smaller powered watercraft 1 in a more             
          controlled and slow manner than would be possible utilizing the             
          propulsion unit of the smaller watercraft 1, thus minimizing the            
          risk of damage to either the smaller or larger watercraft.                  
               Claims 62 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being           
          unpatentable over the Japanese publication.  Noting that artisans           
          must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what            
          the references disclose (see In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135           
          USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962)) and 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 at 1390, 163           

                                         -16-                                         




Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007