Appeal No. 97-2713
Application 08/373,069
the water for supporting an above-water transport unit.
Appellant also does not take issue with the examiner’s finding
on page 3 of the answer that Barkley’s superstructure 32 is an
above-water unit as broadly defined in claim 1. Appellant
does, however, take issue with the examiner’s finding that
Barkley’s pontoon hulls define an ?underwater unit? as recited
in claim 1. Appellant also contends that Barkley’s supporting
unit (pontoon hulls 16) and the above-water unit 32 are not
movable toward and away from one another as required by claim
1 because ?the pontoons 16 of Barkley are pivotally connected
to the abovewater [sic] unit 12 by pivot axes 46 and remain at
a fixed distance from such axes? (brief, page 10).
Admittedly, the operation of Barkley’s hydraulic rams 58
do not move the patentee’s pontoon hulls 16 toward and away
from the pivots 46. However, they do move the pontoon hulls
toward and away from the above-water superstructure 32 itself
as they are swung between the positions shown in Figures 3 and
4 of the patent drawings. In this regard, it is clear that the
linear distance between the longitudinal axis of the left hand
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007