Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140
field as Spieldiener and appellant (abstract; col. 5, ll. 10-21). See In re GPAC, supra.
Lederman also teaches the advantages of expanded polystyrene foam pellets or beads
as buoyant material for this flotation device (col. 4, ll. 50-60). Accordingly, we determine
that the examiner has established adequate motivation to use the buoyant material
suggested by Lederman in the device of Spieldiener, Wolfe and Hansen.
For the foregoing reasons as well as those stated in the Answer, we determine
that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness over the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of appellant’s
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in
favor of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 11 under section 103(a).
D. Rejection (4)
Appellant does not provide any specific argument concerning this rejection (Brief,
page 7). Therefore we adopt the examiner’s factual findings and conclusion of law as
set forth on page 4 of the Answer. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 7 and 13 under
section 103(a) is also affirmed.
E. Summary
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Spieldiener in view of Wolfe and Hansen is affirmed. Similarly, the rejections of claims
3 and 10, claims 4 and 11, and claims 7 and 13 under section 103(a) over the base
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007