Appeal No. 97-2713
Application 08/373,069
With regard to claim 11, we cannot agree with appellant’s
argument that this claim patentably distinguishes from Barkley
by reciting that the bracing means is part of the underwater
unit. In Barkley, the hydraulic rams 58, upon being locked,
define a bracing structure which rigidly joins the pontoon
hulls 16 together through portions of legs 14 and hull 12.
This bracing structure, like pontoon hulls 16, is inherently
capable of being placed underwater. Accordingly, we will also
sustain the § 102(b) rejection of claim 11 since each and
every limitation encompassed by this claim is either expressly
or inherently disclosed in Barkley. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d at 1444, 221 USPQ at 388.
However, we cannot sustain the § 102(b) rejection of
claims 12 and 20. On page 3 of the answer, the examiner states
in substance that the movable control surfaces of claim 12 are
readable on Barkley’s legs 14. However, there is no express or
inherent disclosure in Barkley that any of the surfaces of
legs 14 are capable of providing vertical stability by the
exertion of forces at least equaling the buoyancy of the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007