Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140
These arguments are not persuasive. As correctly stated by the examiner
(Answer, page 5), Wolfe clearly teaches a “chamber within a chamber” design by
disclosing inflatable bladders 18 within the inflatable main body 12, where the “bladders
aid in providing additional buoyancy to the main body, should it lose filling gas” (col. 2, ll.
39-41). Furthermore, the design taught by Hansen would also have been considered by
one of ordinary skill in this art a “chamber within a chamber” design as shown in Figure
2, namely where the inflatable collar 20 with unitary outer cover 23 has one or more
inflatable internal air bladders 25, and each internal air bladder 25 further includes a
foam insert 21 to provide added stability in the event that the air bladders lose water
and airtight integrity (page 1, ¶[0009]; page 2, ¶[0018]; pages 2-3, ¶[0021]; and page 3,
¶[0023]). Accordingly, we determine that Hansen and Wolfe teach the same “chamber
within a chamber” design as recited in claim 1 on appeal for the same function, namely
to provide buoyancy in the event of an air loss in the outer chamber.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we determine that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of appellant’s
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence weighs most heavily
in favor of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we affirm the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 under section 103(a) over Spieldiener in
view of Wolfe and Hansen.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007