Appeal No. 1999-0403
Application 08/804,095
reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465
U.S. 1026 (1984), (and overruled in part on another issue) 775
F.2d 1107, 227 USPQ 577 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Hoenstine discloses a hydroplane apparatus comprising a
pneumatic vehicle innertube 11 with a flexible fabric cover 12
partly covering the innertube and forming a smooth bottom
therefor. Central to the examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim
7 is the examiner’s determination that claim 7 is directed to
a protective cover per se. The examiner contends that
Hoenstine’s cover 12 responds to the structural requirements
of claim 7 in that Hoenstine’s cover 12 includes a top wall
(adjacent reinforced edge 21) overlying the top of the
innertube, a side wall 13 overlying the outer periphery of the
innertube, and a bottom wall (adjacent the outer edge portion
of the cover’s bottom 14) overlying the bottom of the
innertube. The examiner further contends that Hoenstine’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007