Appeal No. 96-4085
Application 08/341,837
to enhance the comfort of the flotation device therein,
especially when using the device as shown in Figure 5b.
As to the requirement of claim 22 that the second float
section have a length which is "shorter than the first float
section," we observe that in following the teachings of Ciolino
to extend the length of the first float section (11) of Johnson
so as to enhance the comfort of the flotation device therein by
supporting the head and neck of a user, it would logically follow
that the second float section (12) would then be shorter than
the first float section, as is also depicted in Ciolino (e.g.,
Figures 5A, 5B).
Where we part company with the examiner is in the
evaluation of the claimed size of the connecting section relative
to the float sections, i.e, the requirements in appellants'
claims that the connecting section must be "longer than either of
said float sections," and that the connecting section be "sized
and adapted to extend from a mid back region of the user to a
femoral region of the user and to terminate at such femoral
region." In this regard, we must agree with appellants' argument
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007