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