Ex parte Kaye

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 13, 1998

08050911 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 13, 1998)

Application for patent filed April 21, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte BRUCE KAYE
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3283
Application 08/050,9111
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CALVERT, COHEN, and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 20. These claims constitute all of the claims in the
application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to an airboat, propelling
means for an airboat, a method for creating an airboat propelling
Appeal No. 95-3283
Application No. 08/050,911
Claims 10 and 11 were set forth in a separate rejection in2
the final office action (Paper No. 9). This rejection does not
appear in the answer (Paper No. 15). However, claims 10 and 11
were discussed on pages 4 and 11 at the end of the rejection of
claims 1 through 9, 12 through 14, and 16 through 20, a rejection
applying the same art as applied to claims 10 and 11. It
therefore appears to us that the rejection of claims 1 through 9,
Cont...
12 through 14, and 16 through 20 was intended to now include
claims 10 and 11, and we therefore group claims 10 and 11 with
that rejection.
2
system, respective methods for reducing torque, reducing noise,
and increasing efficiency relative to an airboat propelling
system, and an airboat propulsion system. A further
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1, 6, and 12, copies of which appear in the
appendix to the brief (Paper No. 13).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
following patents:
Stout 1,842,055 Jan. 19, 1932
Van Veldhuizen 4,421,489 Dec. 20, 1983
Wright 5,090,869 Feb. 25, 1992

The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1 through 9, 10 and 11, 12 through 14, and 162
Appeal No. 95-3283
Application No. 08/050,911
In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have3
considered all of the disclosure thereof for what it would have
fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe,
355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). Cont...

Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
3
through 20 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being
unpatentable over Van Veldhuizen in view of Wright.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being
unpatentable over Van Veldhuizen in view of Wright, further in
view of Stout.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 9 and 15), while the complete
statement of appellant’s argument can be found in the brief
(Paper No. 13).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings, and3
Appeal No. 95-3283
Application No. 08/050,911
342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We reverse the examiner’s respective rejections of the
claims on appeal under 35 USC §103.
Initially, we note that appellant informs us in the
specification (pages 2 and 3) that an object of the invention is
to provide an airboat with a hollow driven shaft to introduce a
predetermined flexure into the system and avoid damage which
might result from sharp turning movements. This shaft offers
flexibility, strength, and decreased weight.
Simply stated, we are of the opinion that the evidence
relied upon does not support a conclusion of obviousness relative
to the claimed subject matter.
The ground effect vehicle of Van Veldhuizen includes a motor
22 with a rearwardly projecting power output shaft 28 having a
Appeal No. 95-3283
Application No. 08/050,911
5
seven-bladed fan 30 mounted thereon. The focus of the patentee’s
attention is on a pair of upstanding steering vanes. The passage
in the patent (column 3, lines 20 through 30), referenced by the
examiner, addresses the applicability of the vane arrangement to
other fluid propelled vehicles, e.g., air boats and propeller
aircraft. However, we do not perceive from this statement any
inference that the engine and power output disclosed by Van
Veldhuizen may appropriately be replaced by any aircraft engine
configuration. We, of course, recognize that those of ordinary
skill in the art understand that airboats typically employ
aircraft engines connected to solid direct-drive shafts
(appellant’s specification, page 1). Notwithstanding this latter
knowledge, we do not discern any basis for selecting the engine
and shaft configuration of Wright from among all known aircraft
engine arrangements for use with an airboat, apart from
appellant’s own teaching. The Stout patent does not overcome
this deficiency.
Since the only evidence before us fails to suggest the
claimed invention, we are constrained to reverse the rejections
of appellant’s claims under 35 USC § 103. It follows that we
need not address the affidavits mentioned in the brief (pages 24
Appeal No. 95-3283
Application No. 08/050,911
6
and 25) in light of the absence of a prima facie case of
obviousness.
In summary, this panel of the board has reversed each of the
examiner’s rejections of appellant’s claims under 35 USC §103.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3283
Application No. 08/050,911
7
Herbert L. Allen
Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Franjola
and Milbrath
P.O. Box 3791
Orlando, FL 32802-3791