Appeal No. 96-4085
Application 08/341,837
that neither Johnson nor Ciolino teaches or suggests a connecting
section that would be responsive to these particular claim limi-
tations. The examiner's position (answer, page 5) that the
"references teach that the dimensions of the float sections are
obvious matters of design choice," is unavailing. Appellants'
specification makes it clear in a number of different places that
the relative dimensions of the connecting section vis-à-vis the
float sections is an "important feature of the invention" and
"particularly advantageous" (see, e.g., specification, pages 3-4)
because it permits the flotation apparatus to be used in a
variety of modes (including chair and sling configurations),
to be folded into a very compact configuration, and it permits
the user's head and neck to remain above the water even though
much of the user's body will be immersed due to its support only
by the long and less buoyant connecting section. Representative
dimensions for the respective float sections and the connecting
section are set forth in the paragraph bridging pages 8-9 of
appellants' specification.
Under the circumstances here, we consider that it is
inappropriate for the examiner to merely invoke design choice as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007