Appeal No. 2005-0194 Page 3
Application No. 09/867,859
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
supplemental answer (Paper No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Rubin discloses an electric drive system for a boat and, more particularly, for
sailboats. The drive system includes battery chargers 6, 9 and batteries 4, 8 housed on
the boat, with the battery chargers being connected to shore power through a shore
power connector 5. Rubin does not disclose the details of the connection between the
battery chargers and shore power and thus lacks the retractable cord device called for
in independent claims 1 and 13.1
Neidenberg discloses a device for handling heavy-duty power cables to facilitate
their storage when not in use and, more particularly, to a device for handling power
cables employed to connect a power system of a boat to shore facilities while storing
1 We find it implausible, however, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have immediately
envisaged a power cord for connection to shore power.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007