Appeal No. 1999-0403
Application 08/804,095
and a bottom wall that “overlap at least a portion of the
upper and lower inflatable rings respectively.” Thus, the
body of the claim positively incorporates the swimming pool
into the claimed subject matter by positively reciting the
structural relationship between the top and bottom walls of
the cover and the upper and lower rings of the swimming pool.
If one gives full effect to the language of
the preamble, the claim must be considered to be directed to
the protective cover per se. On the other hand, if one gives
full effect to the language appearing in the body of the
claim, the claim must be considered to be directed to the
combination of the cover and swimming pool. This
inconsistency makes the scope of claims 7-10 unclear.
Summary
The rejection of claim 7 as being anticipated by
Hoenstine is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7 and 11 as being unpatentable
over Lund in view of Reinhardt is affirmed with respect to
claim 7, but is reversed as to claim 11.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007