Appeal No. 1999-0403
Application 08/804,095
comprising both an upper inflatable ring and a lower
inflatable ring, Reinhardt unequivocally teaches that the
floor 36 should extend between the rings at their interface
(see Figures 1, 2, 8A, 8B and 8C). Accordingly, a fair
consideration of the combined teachings of Lund and Reinhardt
would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a
“swimming pool” (i.e., inflatable raft) having a floor
“extending across the bottom of the lower inflatable ring” in
combination with the cover of Lund. In this regard, we
appreciate that when Lund and Reinhardt are combined in the
manner the examiner appears to propose, central portion 13a of
Lund would, generally speaking, be located adjacent the bottom
of the lower inflatable ring. However, Lund’s central portion
13a would not undergo a metamorphosis from the floor of the
cover into the floor of substituted inflatable raft in the
proposed combination, especially when Reinhardt’s raft already
has a floor (i.e., element 36). To conclude otherwise would
be an unreasonable interpretation of the reference teachings
based on hindsight, in our view. For this reason, we will not
sustain the standing § 103 rejection of claim 11.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007