Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715
Appellant argues lack of motivation for the combination of Price’s
bilge water pump monitoring with Herzhauser’s stuffing box water
containment and removal method (Br. 7). Specifically, Appellant argues
Herzhauser discloses pumping out the water from the holding tank “in the
usual manner” which indicates that no efforts are made to monitor the rate of
water accumulation (Br. 7). Appellant contends that Herzhauser’s disclosure
to remove water from sump 46 in the “usual manner” actually teaches away
from “monitoring water collected exclusively from a packing box” (Br. 7).
Appellant further contends that Price merely teaches removing bilge
water which may accumulate from various sources (i.e., rain, ocean spray,
etc.), not necessarily from a stuffing box such that monitoring bilge water
accumulation will not necessarily indicate that the stuffing box requires
maintenance (Br. 7, 8). Based upon this contention, Appellant argues that
Price neither discloses nor suggests a method or apparatus for monitoring
water leakage from a stuffing box of an inboard engine propeller shaft (Br.
7).
Furthermore, Appellant contends that his invention permits the quick
and easy determination of whether a stuffing box is leaking which was not
possible prior to Appellant’s invention (Br. 8).
The Examiner responds that Herzhauser discloses that water leaking
through the stuffing box into sump 46 is leaking into the bilge of the marine
craft (Answer 13). The Examiner further states that “Price suggests
monitoring leakage into a bilge whether it be through stuffing box leakage or
through some other type of leakage” (Answer 13-14). The Examiner finds
that Price monitors the water leakage to prevent “catastrophic results due to
continuous running of the bilge pump” (Answer 14). The Examiner further
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013