Appeal No. 95-3283
Application No. 08/050,911
system, respective methods for reducing torque, reducing noise,
and increasing efficiency relative to an airboat propelling
system, and an airboat propulsion system. A further
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1, 6, and 12, copies of which appear in the
appendix to the brief (Paper No. 13).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
following patents:
Stout 1,842,055 Jan. 19, 1932
Van Veldhuizen 4,421,489 Dec. 20, 1983
Wright 5,090,869 Feb. 25, 1992
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1 through 9, 10 and 11, 12 through 14, and 162
2Claims 10 and 11 were set forth in a separate rejection in
the final office action (Paper No. 9). This rejection does not
appear in the answer (Paper No. 15). However, claims 10 and 11
were discussed on pages 4 and 11 at the end of the rejection of
claims 1 through 9, 12 through 14, and 16 through 20, a rejection
applying the same art as applied to claims 10 and 11. It
therefore appears to us that the rejection of claims 1 through 9,
Cont...
12 through 14, and 16 through 20 was intended to now include
claims 10 and 11, and we therefore group claims 10 and 11 with
that rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007