Appeal No. 97-2713
Application 08/373,069
The only other argument supporting patentability of claim
29 is that there would have been ?no reason to make
[Barkley’s] legs 14 telescoping based on the teachings of
Anderson? (brief, page 18). This argument is also
unpersuasive. Claim 29 does not require any elements of the
moving means to be telescoping members. Therefore, the
telescoping feature may not be relied on to support the
patentability of claim 29 over the applied references. See In
re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982) and In
re Richards, 187 F.2d 643, 645, 89 USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951).
In the final analysis, the movement of Barkley’s left
hand pontoon hull 16 and the patentee’s superstructure 32
toward and away from each other is ?essentially linear? (claim
29, line 3) at least for a limited distance. Appellant has not
argued otherwise.
The examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed with respect to claims 1 through 5, 7 through 11, 13,
14, 16 through 19, 24, 25 and 29, but is reversed with respect
to claims 12, 15, 20 through 23, 26 and 32 through 34.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007