Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140
proposed in the rejection.
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 3 and 10 over the cited references.
C. Rejection (3)
With regard to the rejection of claims 4 and 11, this rejection is similar to rejection
(2) with the exception that claims 4 and 11 specify different buoyant materials than
claims 3 and 10. The examiner adopts the factual findings from Spieldiener, Wolfe and
Hansen as discussed above, further citing Lederman for its teaching of beads used as
buoyant material (Answer, page 4). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to form the device of
Spieldiener, Wolfe and Hansen with beads for the buoyant material, as taught by
Lederman (id.). We agree.
Appellant argues that Lederman is drawn from an unrelated field and there is
nothing in any of the cited references that teaches or suggests this combination (Brief,
page 7). These arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted by the examiner
(Answer, page 6), Lederman is directed to personal flotation devices, which is the same
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007