Appeal No. 2003-0700
Application 09/547,578
c) a fin pitch control mechanism comprising a second
rotatable member located in said second opening of said body;
d) wherein said pitch control mechanism is structured and
arranged so that a selected amount of rotation of said second
rotatable member selects the water depth.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Drake 1,870,559 Aug. 9, 1932
Golembeski 2,484,162 Oct. 11, 1949
Watts 3,858,344 Jan. 7, 1975
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 3, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Drake.
Claims 24 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Drake in view of Watts.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drake in view of Watts and Golembeski.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 13 and 15) and to the examiner’s final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 9 and 14) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner regarding the merits
of these rejections.1
1 In the final rejection, claims 15 through 23 stood
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. As pointed out above, the examiner has since
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007