Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140
B. Rejection (2)
With regard to the rejection of claims 3 and 10, the examiner applies Spieldiener,
Wolfe and Hansen as discussed above (Answer, page 4). The examiner recognizes
that Spieldiener does not disclose gas filled balls as a buoyant material (id.). Therefore
the examiner applies Cooney for its teaching of using gas filled balls as a buoyant
material in a flotation device (id.).2 From these findings, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to use the gas filled balls as buoyant
2We note that, in the event of further or continuing prosecution of the claimed
subject matter, the examiner should consider the patentability of at least claim 1 on
appeal over Cooney alone. As noted by the examiner, this reference teaches an
inflatable outer chamber having a flexible outer wall surrounding containment bags
(inflated balls) that partially fill the outer chamber, where this plurality of water-tight
containment bags contain buoyant material (air). As discussed infra, the principle of
Cooney can be applied to boats.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007