Appeal No. 96-4085
Application 08/341,837
Johnson et al has no float section which is
sized and adapted to underlie the head and
shoulders of a user.
In addition, claim 22 calls for a second
float section which is sized and adapted to
underlie a femoral portion of the legs of
the user. This second float section is
“shorter than the first float section”.
In the buoyancy means of Johnson et al,
the two floats 11 and 12 appear from Fig. 6
to be of about the same length. The
flotation apparatus of claim 22 also includes
a connecting section which is longer than
“either of said float sections” and the
connecting section is sized and adapted “to
extend from a mid back region of the user to
a femoral region of the user”. As shown in
Fig. 5b of Johnson et al, the connecting
member 14 does not extend from a mid back
region of the user, but rather underlies
the user’s buttocks.
On page 6 of the brief, appellants urge, with regard to
Ciolino and the examiner's combination of the applied
references, that
Ciolino's float is very different from Appel-
lants’ in that, for example, the hinge 3 is
shorter than both of the float sections 1
and 2, the hinge 3 does not extend from a mid
back region to a femoral region and the float
of Ciolino does not terminate at the distal
end of the float section 2 as required by
claim 22.
Given these significant differences, there
is no motivation provided to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Johnson et al only
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007