Appeal No. 2000-1338
Application 09/107,241
is intended to be replenished while the air compartment is
inflated, or that the liquid compartment 18 could not actually
be replenished (e.g., by use of a relatively high pressure
tap) while the air compartment 20 is inflated. Furthermore,
none of the claims requires, as implied by the appellants,
that the pressurized air in the second chamber be capable of
lifting the water in the first chamber to an elevated
position.
As for the failure of Du Plooy to meet the shower head
limitations in claims 1 and 13, the examiner’s reliance on the
Hall patents to cure this deficiency is sound. Each of the
Hall patents discloses a solar-heated, outdoor shower device
comprising a flexible plastic chamber adapted to be filled
with water and an outlet hose with a spray or shower head on
the free end thereof. The examiner’s conclusion (see page 3
in the answer) that the Hall patents would have suggested the
provision of a shower head on the free end of Du Plooy’s
liquid compartment outlet hose 34 (to accommodate showering)
is reasonable on its face and has not been specifically
challenged by the appellants. For the reasons discussed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007