Appeal No. 97-2713
Application 08/373,069
any case, it is sufficient that Barkley’s pontoon hulls are
inherently capable of being place underwater given appropriate
load and buoyancy forces. Thus, claim 1 does not distinguish
from Barkley by reciting that the supporting unit is an
?underwater unit.?
Based on the foregoing analysis, we are satisfied that
all of the limitations in claim 1 are either expressly or
inherently disclosed in the Barkley patent. Barkley therefore
anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. See RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will sustain
the § 102(b) rejection of claim 1.
We will also sustain the § 102(b) rejection of dependent
claims 2, 9, 10, 14, 17 through 19 and 24 because the
patentability of each of these claims has not been argued
separately of claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Burckel, 592
F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007