Appeal No. 2000-1616
Application 08/698,054
apparatus. Like the examiner, we consider that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the
collective teachings of Havins and Klammer, to utilize a
mounting apparatus like that of Havins for mounting a trolling
motor to a boat in order to effect boat movement as taught by
Klammer. Appellants have not directly taken issue with this
aspect of the examiner’s combination of the prior art
references.
To the extent that appellants have urged (brief, page 8)
that the mounting apparatus of Havins is incapable of
supporting a “relatively heavy trolling motor,” we agree with
the examiner that trolling motors are manufactured in a
variety of different sizes and weights, from a relatively
lightweight small power unit to larger, heavier, higher
powered units. Moreover, we point out that Havins expressly
describes (col. 9, lines 55-56) the transducer (187) as
typically being “heavy,” and also describes an embodiment
(Figs. 13-14) wherein the mounting apparatus (151) is used to
support three such “heavy” transducer units carried on the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007