Appeal No. 2001-2543
Application No. 09/225,892
specification, appellants again emphasize that the "critical
location" for the weight member is on the exact opposite side of
the tank from the diver, a relationship clearly not taught or
suggested by Finnern.
In light of the foregoing, we must conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness and therefore we refuse to sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 21 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Finnern.
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 2 through 6 and 22
through 24 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Finnern in
view of Eylander, we have reviewed the Eylander patent, but find
nothing therein that provides for the deficiencies noted above in
the basic patent to Finnern. Appellants' claimed subject matter
requires that the means for attaching and the weight member be
"attached at a position on said cylinder where the person cannot
remove said weight member while the cylinder is attached to the
person" and wherein the attachment position of the weight member
on the cylinder "allows the weight member to rotate the person to
ensure heads up surface positioning if the person becomes
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007