Appeal No. 96-4085
Application 08/341,837
As a preliminary matter, we note that on page 5 of the
brief appellants have set forth that claims 8 through 12 stand or
fall together with independent claim 22, while each of the other
claims on appeal "do not stand or fall together."
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this
appeal has included a careful assessment of appellants'
specification and claims, the applied prior art references and
the respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have come to the conclusion,
for the reasons which follow, that the examiner's rejections of
the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
Looking to the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4,
8 through 12, 21 through 23 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
on Johnson and Ciolino, we note that independent claim 22 is
directed to the flotation apparatus, while independent claim 21
is directed to a flotation method using such apparatus. On
page 5 of the brief, appellants urge that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007