Appeal No. 97-1979
Application 08/278,335
modified, the Astle device would meet all of the limitations
in claims 17, 18 and 20 which have been argued by the
appellant.
As for the ellipsoidal balloon shape recited in claim 19,
the record does not support the appellant’s contention that
this particular shape contributes to an aerodynamically sound
kite/balloon unit (see page 5 in the main brief). To the
contrary, the specification in the instant application
indicates that the appellant’s aim is “to allow the use of
light cheap mass-produced disposable balloons that are easily
available and economical” (page 2) and that “[m]any shapes,
types and sizes of balloon could be used” (page 2). In this
light and since the record fails to establish that the
ellipsoidal balloon shape recited in claim 19 solves a stated
problem or presents a new or unexpected result, such shape
would have been an obvious matter of design choice within the
skill of the art (see In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ
7, 8-9 (CCPA 1975)).
The following new rejections are entered pursuant to 37
CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007