Ships – Boats – boat component – or attachment – Inflatable
Reexamination Certificate
2000-12-27
2002-11-26
Avila, Stephen (Department: 3617)
Ships
Boats, boat component, or attachment
Inflatable
C114S071000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06484661
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF INVENTION
Nautical Accessory, Utility Attachment for Inflatable Boat.
BACKGROUND
Description of Prior Art
Prior Art attachments intended to improve the seaworthiness of inflatable boats have been narrow in scope, limited in their practical utility, poorly constructed or technical, complex and expensive and, for the most part, have failed to significantly increase the seaworthiness of inflatables.
We use the term “Attachment” or “Accessory” to refer to an object or device that is not essential in itself but that adds to the beauty, convience, utility or effectiveness of something else.
The invention disclosed here is a fairly inexpensive, simple piece of equipment, with no moving parts which is optional for inflatable boats and was specifically designed for particular uses. When this attachment was connected to an inflatable, the results were a combination of beneficial effects which were both novel and anticipated and novel and unanticipated.
The review of the prior art will show that the combined effects or results that follow the hook-up or connection of this apparatus to inflatable boats have not been anticipated nor taught by the prior art.
Indeed, a review of the prior art repeatedly shows that those familiar with and skilled in the art have invented around but have not particularly pointed out nor distinctly claimed an attachment that significantly increases the seaworthiness and utility of inflatable boats or creates the combination of improvements this invention creates, when the attachment is connected to an inflatable.
This, of course, indicates that this invention is not obvious at all; further, the combination of results are novel in a variety of ways that are not duplicated and cannot be duplicated by the prior art.
The synergistic effect is more than the sum of the parts of having a hardbody boat on the one hand and an inflatable on the other; neither, by itself, creates this result. The effect is a hybred effect, more than the sum of it's parts, crossing the worlds of higher profile hardbody boats with those of lower profile inflatables, when this attachment is connected to an inflatable.
Indeed, this attachment is well poised for commercial success since it fills a long felt need which has not been addressed by those skilled in the art. Further, it increses the value added at a lower cost than alternative attachments, if any.
The prior art repeatedly teaches and anticipates around this invention but is not on point; if this invention were obvious, the prior art would not teach around it. If those skilled in the Art had thought of this invention they would have invented it by now, therefore this invention must be nonobvious.
The evidence collected here repeatedly shows that the differences between Mr. Stewart's invention and the prior art were not at all obvious and could not have been obvious to those skilled in the art at the time the prior art was made, otherwise the prior art would be more on point.
There are some rough and remote approximations to our invention that include a complete boat or an accessory for a boat but that teach or anticipate around the invention which is the subject of this application e.g. Hiller, U.S. Pat. No. 4,807,556; Garnier-Lock, U.S. Pat. No. 6,186,088 B1; Lewis, U.S. Pat. No. 5,070,807; Harding, U.S. Pat. No. 5,033,434.
With this attachment, we are claiming less not more than the prior art, but what we claim has greater utility not less utility than the prior art, when this attachment is placed on an inflatable. This applies primarily where the prior art claims an entire boat, not an accessory for a boat.
Where we review prior art accessories for inflatable boats, our invention provides suprising and unanticipated results not provided by prior art accessories. These unanticipated results include but are not limited to enhanced overall handeling, balance and performance, when the attachment is connected to the inflatable.
Though Hull et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,677) discloses an inflatable watercraft with pontoons, a rigid deck and a cabin, it is an entire inflatable boat which they claim, as contrasted with an optional, surface accessory, which is the invention claimed by this applicant. We claim less not more; we claim an optional attachment for a boat, not the entire boat itself.
They claim “an adaptable, multipurpose boat”, we claim “an attachment for increasing seaworthiness and utility of inflatable boats”. The focus of the Hull invention is an embedded hull and the “deck” they refer to is located on what is normally considered the “bridge” of a boat, not the horizontal perimeter circumference of the inflatable which is the location of the “deck” on the accessory described by our invention.
Most prior art described here is using the term “deck” to refer to what is actually the “bridge” area of a boat; we use the term “deck” to refer to a horizontal perimeter plank area which lies at the outermost perimerimeter around the horizontal circumference of a boat, lying on a raised area above the bridge. Not all boats have a deck as we described here; for example boats that are extremely aerodynamic in shape do not have such a deck area, though there may be a lip or ridge there not intended as a deck area. See also Simpkins (U.S. Pat. No. 5,452,687) at #14 for support platform and Garnier-Lock (U.S. Pat. No. 6,186,088 B1) for support base.
The “deck” that Hull et al disclose is not equavilent to the horizontal perimeter plank area described by this applicant when referring to the accessory for inflatable boat. Hull et al do not distinctly claim this circumference perimeter plank area as part of the “deck” area and their invention teaches away from this area and toward the “bridge” location with a primary focus on the recessed, embedded hull construction.
Reymann et al (U.S. Pat. No. 4,745,860) like Hall et al disclose and claim an entire boat, not an accessory for a boat; they are claiming more, we are claiming less. Reymann discloses a hard body toy boat with a round balloon, not a seaworthy pontoon. There are no attachments or accessories which serve to enhance the practical utility of generic inflatable boats.
Reymann et al do not teach nor anticipate significant expanded practical utility applications for their invention, such as expanded usable space and load capacity, as does the Stewart invention. Though both inventions can be used for recreational purposes, these are not comparable inventions.
Simpkins (U.S. Pat. No. 5,452,678) discloses a top for a pontoon boat. He claims the whole boat, though the “boat Top” of his dependent claim is not disclosed as an independent “accessory”. Given that this claim is dependent on the independent claim, he is still claiming an entire boat as his invention. Simpkins is claiming more, we are claiming less.
There is no discussion of this boat top being or intended to be particularily seaworthy, nor is there any indication that this boat top is designed to be an easily removeable, detachable or collapsable accessory such as the attachment we have here submitted for a patent.
Rather, the Simpkins claims indicate that this boat top is intended to be a permanent part of the pontoon boat. The Simpkins boat top is not a “deck” area such as the perimeter runway which is particularily pointed out and distinctly claimed by this inventor. Nothing here teaches that this boat top is particularly seaworthy i.e. useful in rough ocean waters on the open sea.
Hull et al, Reymann et al and Simpkins individually and in combination anticipate around and teach away from the Stewart invention, in part, because they disclose as their primary, independent claims, an inflatable boat or pontoon boat as a whole, not an accessory for an inflatable boat.
Further, Reymann et al does not provide a perimeter circumference runway; rather, his disclosure provides a recess on the superstructure at #3 and #7 which is akin to the streamlined, aerodynamic boat refered to in paragraph 18 earlier, where a lip or a ridge can be seen but is not disclosed as a deck area.
This lip or ridge is located w
Avila Stephen
Solis Louis
LandOfFree
Hard-top design inflatable watercraft with assembly for... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Hard-top design inflatable watercraft with assembly for..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Hard-top design inflatable watercraft with assembly for... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2973738