Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art of Angier and Nakase establishes a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to claims 1 through 4 on appeal.
This prima facie case has not been rebutted by appellants.
Therefore, the rejection of these claims is affirmed. As to
all other claims on
appeal, namely, claims 5 through 12 and 14 through 16, it is
our determination that the applied prior art does not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
these claims. Therefore, the rejection of these claims will
not be affirmed. Our reasons follow.
With respect to claims 1 through 4, for which we have
found a prima facie case of obviousness, unrebutted by the
appellants, it is our finding that Angier discloses a
watercraft having a hull comprising at least an inlet opening
16 as shown in the plan view of Figure 1. The hull further
includes a tunnel member formed by the outer tubular
cylindrical and frustoconical members (further wall 20)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007