Appeal No. 97-1979
Application 08/278,335
it (see the advisory letter dated June 11, 1996, Paper No. 9).
Presumably, claim 21 stands objected to as depending from a
rejected base claim.2
The invention relates to “an aerodynamically sound,
lighter than air kite/balloon unit” (specification, page 2).
Claim 14 is illustrative and reads as follows:
14. In the combination of a lighter-than-air balloon and
a kite, the improvement comprising means fixedly securing a
forward portion of said kite to an underside of said balloon
against movement of said portion of the kite relative to said
underside of the balloon.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation and obviousness are:
Astle 2,208,786 Jul. 23, 1940
Babbidge 3,791,611 Feb. 12, 1974
Holland, Jr. (Holland) 4,216,929 Aug. 12, 1980
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
a) claims 14, 15 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Astle;
b) claims 16 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Astle in view of Holland; and
2The indication on page 3 in the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 12) that claim 21 stands rejected is inconsistent with the
advisory letter and apparently is the result of an inadvertent
oversight on the part of the examiner.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007