Appeal No. 97-2713
Application 08/373,069
devoid of any suggestion of extending electrical power
transmitting means through Barkley’s hydraulic rams 58. With
regard to claim 23, the applied references are also devoid of
any suggestion of extending any air conveying means through
Barkley’s hydraulic rams 58.
We also cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of dependent
method claim 34 because the teachings of Anderson do not
rectify the shortcomings of Barkley as discussed with respect
to claim 26.
Finally, we will sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 29.
Appellant’s argument that Anderson would not have been
considered by one of ordinary skill in the art as set forth on
page 17 of the brief is unpersuasive. Like Douglas and
Laukien, Anderson falls squarely within appellant’s field of
endeavor, namely watercraft. This reference, therefore, is
properly taken into account in evaluating the patentability of
the claimed subject matter under § 103. See Clay, 966 F.2d at
658, 23 USPQ2d at 1060.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007