Appeal No. 97-1979
Application 08/278,335
a thin plastic film 12 preferably of polyester
[e.g., “Mylar”] because of its dimensional
stability, adaptability to metallizing, availability
in thin gauges (as low as one-half mil or less),
ageing-resistance, and, for its weight, its
relatively high tensile strength, resistance to
snagging and ripping, and low permeability to light-
density gases. . . . Irrespective of the chemical
composition of the core 12, however, it is provided,
on the surface which forms the interior of the
envelope 11, with a metallizing coating 13,
preferably (and now easily obtainable) a “thin film”
of aluminum conventionally formed by depositing a
vapor of aluminum upon the film core 12 in an ultra-
high vacuum [column 2, lines 30 through 48].
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In the present case and notwithstanding
the arguments to the contrary advanced by the appellant, the
combined teachings of Astle and Babbidge would have provided
the artisan with ample suggestion or motivation (1) to modify
the Astle device by making its inflatable tube or balloon 6
lighter-than-air in order to augment its intended lifting
function and (2) to implement this modification by employing
Babbidge’s helium-filled, metal-coated plastic envelope
construction to gain the above noted benefits of same. As so
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007