Ex parte VON SCHWARZENFELD

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 11, 1998

08373192 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 11, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 13, 1995. According1
to appellant, this application is a national stage application
under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of PCT/EP94/01274 filed April 23, 1994.
Claims 12 through 14 were amended and claim 23 was added2
subsequent to the final rejection.
-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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte WOLFGANG K. VON SCHWARZENFELD
________________
Appeal No. 97-0275
Application 08/373,1921
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before CALVERT, ABRAMS and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal, filed in response to the final rejection dated
November 7, 1995 (Paper No. 9), involves claims 12 through 14 and
23, all of the claims pending in the application.2
Appeal No. 97-0275
Application 08/373,192
An English language translation of this reference,3
prepared on behalf of the Patent and Trademark Office, is
appended hereto.
-2-
The invention relates to a sail particularly designed to be
reefed. Claim 23 is illustrative and reads as follows:
23. A sail arrangement, comprising:
a sail;
means for reefing the sail; and
an inflatable luff chamber forming an integral part of the
sail and defining a reefing axis, wherein the luff chamber is
formed as one of an aerodynamically profiled rubber hose and an
aerodynamically profiled plastic hose, and wherein the sail has a
pocket for receiving the one hose.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Ljungstrom 2,107,303 Feb. 8, 1938
Birchill 3,391,668 Jul. 9, 1969
Schmidt G 86 24 010.2 Feb. 12, 19873
(German Patent Document)
Claims 12 through 14 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Birchill in view of Ljungstrom
and Schmidt.
Birchill discloses a sail 12 having an inflatable chamber 14
disposed along its luff portion, i.e., along its leading edge.
The chamber has an airfoil configuration and functions to prevent
Appeal No. 97-0275
Application 08/373,192
-3-
the problem known as “luffing” by preserving the desired contour
of the sail under different conditions. In the embodiment
illustrated in Figure 4, the forward edge 28 of the inflatable
chamber carries a bolt rope 30 which is received within a slot 31
in a mast 29. As conceded by the examiner (see page 4 in the
answer, Paper No. 18), the Birchill sail does not meet the
limitations in claim 23 pertaining to the means for reefing the
sail and to the hose-pocket construction of the luff chamber.
Ljungstrom discloses a sail 4 which is adapted to be reefed
by rotating the mast 3 to which it is mounted. To this end, the
mast is operatively associated with means for effectuating the
rotation (see Figures 6 and 7).
Schmidt discloses a sail 1 having a pocket 5 at its leading
edge. The pocket envelopes the mast 2 to which the sail is
mounted and three inflatable tubes 7, 8 and 9. The tubes are
configured to define an aerodynamic profile which provides a
laminar air flow along the surface of the sail in the area of the
mast.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to use the mast 29 of BIRCHILL to reef the sail 12 of
BIRCHILL by providing a reefing means similar to that
shown in figures 6 and 7 of LJUNGSTROM. As such the
luff chamber 27 [sic, 14] at its forward end defined by
Appeal No. 97-0275
Application 08/373,192
-4-
edge 28 and bolt rope 30 will define a reefing axis for
reefing the sail 12 about the mast [answer, page 4].
The examiner also considers that it further would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to provide a hose similar to 7 of [Schmidt] within the
pocket 14 of BIRCHILL. Use of such a hose means that
inflating of the pocket of BIRCHILL can be better
controlled as the air flowing into the pocket will not
have to be relied upon to inflate the pocket [answer,
page 5].
Even if the references were combined in the foregoing
manner, however, the resulting sail arrangement would not meet
the limitation in independent claim 23 requiring the inflatable
luff chamber to define a reefing axis. To begin with, the
examiner’s determination that the forward end of Birchill’s luff
chamber 14 at edge 28 and bolt rope 30 would define a reefing
axis if the mast 3 were made rotatable in view of Ljungstrom is
not well taken. The actual reefing axis in such a modified
arrangement would be at the central axis of the mast and not at
the edge 28 and bolt rope 30. Moreover, claim 23 requires the
luff chamber, and not its forward edge, to define the reefing
axis. Thus, even if the edge 28 and bolt rope 30 of Birchill’s
sail arrangement as modified in view of Ljungstrom did define a
reefing axis, the limitation at issue would still not be met.
Since Schmidt does not cure this shortcoming in the basic
Appeal No. 97-0275
Application 08/373,192
-5-
Birchill-Ljungstrom combination, the appellant’s position (see
pages 6 through 11 in the brief, Paper No. 17) that the combined
teachings of these references would not have suggested the
subject matter recited in claim 23, and in claims 12 through 14
which depend therefrom, is persuasive. Accordingly, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these claims.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-0275
Application 08/373,192
-6-
Akoo-Toren
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1182