Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
Turning to a consideration with respect to the other
claims on appeal, it is our determination that it would not
have been obvious to use the teachings of Hamilton in
combination with the disclosure of Nakase and Angier.
Hamilton is directed to engine mounts. Were this teaching to
be applied to Nakase or Angier, it is the engines of each that
would be resiliently mounted, not an outer housing in a
tunnel. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 5 through 12
and 14 through 16, which all rely, in part, on Hamilton plus
other references, are not sustained.
Turning to the rejections on appeal based on Nakase in
view of Rennen and Webb, we note that Rennen is directed to
the disclosure of mounting a resilient rubber cover plate in
the propeller tunnel of a hull to absorb vibrations from the
propeller. It is our view that this teaching combined with
the disclosure of Nakase would not have resulted in a device
in which the outer housing was resiliently mounted. At best,
these combined teachings would have suggested that a rubber
sound absorbing plate be placed at some location in the jet-
propelled craft and that this sound absorbing plate be mounted
resiliently. Since the combined teachings of Nakase, Rennen
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007