Appeal No. 2001-1702
Application 09/186,429
brief (page 4). Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
As should be apparent from the foregoing, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 10 and 12
through 19 of the present application is, accordingly, reversed.
In addition to the foregoing, we find it necessary to
REMAND this application back to the examiner for consideration of
the following issue:
During any further prosecution of this application, we
urge the examiner to consider the propriety of a rejection of
claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on the combined teachings of a vessel like that described
in appellants’ discussion of the prior art (specification,
pages 1-3 and Figure 1) and the stabilizer system as set forth
in Carlsen. Carlsen notes (col. 1, lines 11-19) that the stabi-
lizer system therein was “developed especially for use with
surface vessels used for work in the offshore sector” and more
specifically, for ships used in the investigation and production
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007