Ex parte ITO et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 1998

08341455 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 1998)

Application for patent filed November 17, 1994. According to1
appellants, this application is a continuation of Application 07/683,597,
filed April 9, 1991.
1
Paper No. 33
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte KAZUMASA ITO
and
HIROJI KATO
______________
Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,4551
_______________
HEARD: MAY 5, 1998
_______________
Before CALVERT, PATE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal of the rejection of claims
Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
2
1 through 12 and 14 through 16. These are the only claims
remaining in the application.
The claimed invention is directed to a small watercraft
of the inboard, jet-propelled type. The invention comprises
mounting the entire jet propulsion unit relative to the hull
by
a plurality of resilient supports 80 as to ensure against the
transmission of vibrations from the jet propulsion unit to the
hull. Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of
the claimed subject matter.
1. A small watercraft having a hull with a tunnel formed
in the underside thereof, an engine having an engine output
shaft mounted in said hull, a jet propulsion unit comprising
an outer housing defining a water inlet passage extending from
a water inlet opening surrounded by a flange positioned in
juxtaposition at least in part to said hull, an impeller unit
containing an impeller and a discharge nozzle, said engine
output shaft coupled, via an elastic vibration dampening
connection, to an input end of a power transmitting shaft
system, for supplying power to said impeller, and a plurality
of vibration insulating connector assemblies serving the sole
function of mounting said outer housing to said hull within
said tunnel including a vibration damper interposed between
said outer housing flange
and said juxtaposed portion of said hull for precluding any
direct contact there between.
The references of record relied upon as evidence of
obviousness are:
Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
Our understanding of the patent to Rennen is by way of an English2
language translation, a copy of which is attached to our decision.
3
Hamilton 3,233,573 Feb. 8, 1966
Jones 3,827,392 Aug. 6, 1974
Atkinson 3,845,923 Nov. 5, 1974
Nakase et al. (Nakase) 4,765,075 Aug. 23, 1988
Webb et al. (Webb) 4,925,408 May 15, 1990
Rennen (German) 853,715 Oct. 27, 19522
Angier (UK) 1,159,396 July 23, 1969
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Nakase in view of Rennen and Webb.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nakase in view of Rennen, Webb and further
in view of Atkinson.
Claims 5 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Nakase in view of Rennen, Webb, Atkinson,
and Hamilton.
Claims 12, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Nakase in view of Rennen, Webb,
Atkinson and Hamilton, and further in view of additional
disclosure by Webb.
Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
4
Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Angier in view of Nakase.
Claims 5 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Angier in view of Nakase and further in
view of Hamilton.
Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Angier in view Nakase and Hamilton and
further in view of Webb.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Angier in view of Nakase, Hamilton and Webb,
and further in view of Jones.
Reference is made to pages 3-10 of the examiner’s answer
for the details of the examiner’s factual findings and
conclusion of obviousness with respect to the above-outlined
rejections.
The appellants’ brief includes a statement that the
claims do not stand or fall together and includes reasons and
discussion pertinent thereto.
OPINION
Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
5
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art of Angier and Nakase establishes a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to claims 1 through 4 on appeal.
This prima facie case has not been rebutted by appellants.
Therefore, the rejection of these claims is affirmed. As to
all other claims on
appeal, namely, claims 5 through 12 and 14 through 16, it is
our determination that the applied prior art does not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
these claims. Therefore, the rejection of these claims will
not be affirmed. Our reasons follow.
With respect to claims 1 through 4, for which we have
found a prima facie case of obviousness, unrebutted by the
appellants, it is our finding that Angier discloses a
watercraft having a hull comprising at least an inlet opening
16 as shown in the plan view of Figure 1. The hull further
includes a tunnel member formed by the outer tubular
cylindrical and frustoconical members (further wall 20)
Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
6
attached to hull part 16 and rearwardly extending therefrom as
shown in Figure 1. Angier further discloses an outer housing
comprised of pump section 3 and steering section 2. The outer
housing is resiliently mounted to the hull in the tunnel via
gasket 18 and the rubber washers on the mounting plate 19 and
adapter plate 22. Also, sealing member 33 serves to
resiliently mount the outer housing. We are in agreement with
the examiner that the rubber gasket and these rubber washers
would inherently absorb some vibration and provide the sole
mounting means mounting the outer housing in the hull and
tunnel, since there is no metal-to-metal contact.
It is our further finding that Nakase discloses an output
shaft coupled to an engine via the agency of an elastic
vibration dampening connection 53. In our view, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such
an elastic vibration dampening connection in the drive shaft
of Angier for
the disclosed purpose of eliminating drive line vibrations.
Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of Angier and
Nakase, claims 1 through 4 on appeal would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill.
Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
7
Turning to a consideration with respect to the other
claims on appeal, it is our determination that it would not
have been obvious to use the teachings of Hamilton in
combination with the disclosure of Nakase and Angier.
Hamilton is directed to engine mounts. Were this teaching to
be applied to Nakase or Angier, it is the engines of each that
would be resiliently mounted, not an outer housing in a
tunnel. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 5 through 12
and 14 through 16, which all rely, in part, on Hamilton plus
other references, are not sustained.
Turning to the rejections on appeal based on Nakase in
view of Rennen and Webb, we note that Rennen is directed to
the disclosure of mounting a resilient rubber cover plate in
the propeller tunnel of a hull to absorb vibrations from the
propeller. It is our view that this teaching combined with
the disclosure of Nakase would not have resulted in a device
in which the outer housing was resiliently mounted. At best,
these combined teachings would have suggested that a rubber
sound absorbing plate be placed at some location in the jet-
propelled craft and that this sound absorbing plate be mounted
resiliently. Since the combined teachings of Nakase, Rennen
Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
8
and Webb do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to claim 1, the rejections of claims 1 through
12, and 14 through 16 based on Nakase in view of Rennen and
Webb as the basic combination of references, cannot be
sustained.
SUMMARY
A rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
has been affirmed.
The rejections of claims 5 through 12 and 14 through 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been reversed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ian A. Calvert )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
William F. Pate, III ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Jeffrey V. Nase )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 96-2248
Application 08/341,455
10
Ernest A. Beutler
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear
620 Newport Center Drive
Sixteenth Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
WFP/cam