Appeal No. 2003-0209
Application No. 394,390
The sole prior art reference relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting claim 11 is:
Anderson 3,125,980 Mar. 24, 1964
Claim 11 stands rejected under either 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson.
According to the examiner, Anderson
discloses a towed vehicle comprising towing means,
means on said vehicle for generating hydrodynamic
forces and means for selectively controlling the
attitude of said vehicle. The "whereby" clause is
merely a functional statement that recites no structure
or means and is of no assistance in patentably defining
over a reference. A submarine, as well as being
submersible is a ship that proceeds on the surface
(answer, page 2).
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full discussion of the
above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the rejection, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9, mailed December
10, 1965) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
appellants' brief (Paper No. 8, filed October 22, 1965) for the
arguments thereagainst.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007