Appeal No. 97-0275
Application 08/373,192
edge 28 and bolt rope 30 will define a reefing axis for
reefing the sail 12 about the mast [answer, page 4].
The examiner also considers that it further would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to provide a hose similar to 7 of [Schmidt] within the
pocket 14 of BIRCHILL. Use of such a hose means that
inflating of the pocket of BIRCHILL can be better
controlled as the air flowing into the pocket will not
have to be relied upon to inflate the pocket [answer,
page 5].
Even if the references were combined in the foregoing
manner, however, the resulting sail arrangement would not meet
the limitation in independent claim 23 requiring the inflatable
luff chamber to define a reefing axis. To begin with, the
examiner’s determination that the forward end of Birchill’s luff
chamber 14 at edge 28 and bolt rope 30 would define a reefing
axis if the mast 3 were made rotatable in view of Ljungstrom is
not well taken. The actual reefing axis in such a modified
arrangement would be at the central axis of the mast and not at
the edge 28 and bolt rope 30. Moreover, claim 23 requires the
luff chamber, and not its forward edge, to define the reefing
axis. Thus, even if the edge 28 and bolt rope 30 of Birchill’s
sail arrangement as modified in view of Ljungstrom did define a
reefing axis, the limitation at issue would still not be met.
Since Schmidt does not cure this shortcoming in the basic
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007