Appeal No. 2006-1297 Page 9
Application No. 10/699,595
exposure of the unit to the sun addressed by Robinson has no application to a
floating wharf unit.
The appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 3, 5 and 8 are not
persuasive of any error on the part of the examiner in rejecting these claims as
being unpatentable over Thomson in view of Gonzalez, Shorter and Rytand and as
being unpatentable over Thomson in view of Gonzalez, Shorter and Robinson.
These rejections are sustained.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-8 is
AFFIRMED.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007