Appeal No. 95-3566
Application No. 07/950,802
application, the later added limitation. In the present 4
case, we are satisfied that the original specification
reasonably conveys the concept that the restraining means is
operatively interposed between the stabilizer and the tail
pulley in such a way that when the oil skimmer is in use the
tail pulley adopts a floating movement that is free of
engagement, or contact, with the restraining means. The
portion of appellant's specification cited by the examiner
simply relates that the tail pulley is constrained by
engagement with the restraining means either when the belt
breaks or when the skimmer is transported.
In addition, we will not sustain the examiner's prior art
rejections based on Abanaki. Accordingly, we reverse the
examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 6 under § 102/§ 103
over Abanaki, the rejection of claim 4 under § 103 over
Abanaki, the rejection of claims 8-11 under § 103 over Abanaki
in view of Spurr, the rejection of claims 7 and 18 under § 103
over Abanaki in view of Mecham and the rejection of claim 7
over Abanaki in view of Combrowski. The fatal flaw in all
these rejections is that Abanaki does not teach or suggest a
4 Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19
USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007