Appeal No. 2003-1640
Application 09/634,692
and as set forth in the translated abstract [sic] ‘The rudder bar operates on the rudder, when
pushed to one side or the other by the feet through a rod (26)….’) and not up and down as
advanced by the Examiner” (brief, pages 8-9).
We agree with appellant because, in our view, whether whatever up and down motion of
rod 26 caused by other elements of the steering assembly as shown in the figure of the Derwent
abstract that would cause rod 26 and thus toe control 25 to rotate on “axis 23” is mere
speculation on the part of the examiner, which does not establish inherency. See Transclean
Corp. v. Bridgewood Services, Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1372-73, 62 USPQ2d 1865, 1870-71 (Fed.
Cir. 2002), citing Cont’l Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268-69, 20 USPQ2d 1746,
1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[A]nticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the
reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation.”). And in any
event, such rotation does not establish that toe control 25 is pivotally attached to foot brace 8 in
order to affect the steering assembly and direct the watercraft as required by the claims.
Accordingly, we agree with appellants that Carré does not describe the claimed steering
assembly encompassed by appealed claims 16, 17 and 27 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), and thus, we reverse this ground of rejection.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007