Appeal No. 96-4085
Application 08/341,837
with respect to head support, without also
adopting the relatively short connecting
section, or the third float section 5 of
Ciolino. To do this would amount to at-
tempted reconstruction of Appellants’ device
by picking and choosing random features from
the prior art using hindsight and Appellants’
own disclosure as a guide.
While it is true, as seen in Figures 1, 2, 5a and 5b
of Johnson, that the first float section (11) is not sized to
underlie the head and shoulders of a user, we must agree with the
examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to so size the float section (11) and thereby provide
added comfort to the user and also assist in keeping the head and
ears of the user out of the water during use of the flotation
device, as suggested in Ciolino. Ciolino (col. 3, lines 65-68)
specifically notes that the general shape of the first float
section (1) therein is long enough so that "in use it will extend
from the user's head or neck to the lower back area." In
comparing Figures 5a, 5b of Johnson and Figures 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B of
Ciolino, we consider that it would have been readily apparent to
the artisan that head and neck support in Johnson would be needed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007