Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140
material, as taught by Cooney, for improved safety in the flotation device of Spieldiener,
Wolfe and Hansen (id.). We agree.
Appellant argues that Cooney is taken from an unrelated field, and there is
nothing in Cooney or the other references that teaches or suggests the combination of
these references (Brief, page 6).
These arguments are also not persuasive. As correctly noted by the examiner
(Answer, page 5), Cooney specifically teaches that his principle may be applied to
“hovercraft, balloons, inflatable aircraft wings, airships, lifejackets, lifebuoys, beacons or
boats” (abstract; pages 2-3), or wherever “it is essential that a fracture of the outer layer
must not result in deflation of the whole” (page 3). Accordingly, Cooney is directed to
the same field of endeavor as appellant’s invention, as well as concerned with the same
problem facing appellant. See In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1577, 35 USPQ2d 1116,
1120 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(Applicability of references as prior art is determined in
accordance with whether its teachings place it within the field of appellant’s endeavor
or, alternatively, within the field reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
addressed by appellant). Additionally, we note that Cooney is concerned with the same
problem facing Spieldiener, Wolfe, and Hansen, namely a redundant safety flotation
device (see Spieldiener, col. 2, ll. 52-55; Wolfe, col. 2, ll. 39-41; and Hansen, page 2,
¶[0021] and [0023]). Therefore we determine that the examiner has established
sufficient and reasonable motivation or suggestion to combine the references as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007