Appeal No. 95-3566
Application No. 07/950,802
transportable oil skimmer comprising a restraining means that
is so disposed between the stabilizer and the tail pulley as
to allow for floating movement of the tail pulley when in use.
Although it cannot be gainsaid that the examiner is correct in
stating that there must be a clearance between the bore of the
tail pulley and the shaft or bolt inserted therein "to permit
rotation of the tail pulley" (page 6 of Answer), it is not
reasonable to conclude that such a limited clearance between
the tail pulley and the shaft would necessarily or inherently
allow for the tail pulley to assume floating movement while in
use. Indeed, the Hobson Declaration of December 19, 1994
evidences that the prior art oil skimmer disclosed by Abanaki
does not comprise a tail pulley that freely floats when in
use. Spurr, Combrowski and Mecham, the secondary references
cited by the examiner, do not remedy this basic deficiency of
Abanaki.
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 16 over
Combrowski. The method of claim 16 does not define the
relationship between the restraining means, stabilizer and
tail pulley discussed above. Claim 16 recites a conventional
method of skimming oil from the surface of a body of water
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007