Appeal No. 97-1979
Application 08/278,335
Claims 14 through 16, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Astle in view of
Babbidge and Holland. 3
The device disclosed by Astle meets all of the
limitations in these claims except for the one in independent
claim 14 requiring the balloon to be lighter-than-air, the one
in dependent claim 16 requiring a depending keel, the one in
dependent claim 21 defining the securing means recited in
parent claim 14 to comprise strips of adhesive tape, and
arguably the one in claim 14 setting forth the securing means
in mean-plus-function format. For the reasons discussed
above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art in view of Babbidge to modify the Astle device by
making its inflatable tube or balloon component 6 lighter-
than-air in order to enhance its desired lifting function. It
also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of Holland to further modify the Astle device by
providing its kite body component 5 with a depending keel to
attain desired aerodynamic characteristics and to secure the
3For purposes of this rejection, we have read the word
“balloon” in claims 15 and 16 as if it were --kite--.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007