Appeal No. 2000-1338
Application 09/107,241
above, the resulting device and method would meet all of the
limitations in independent claims 1 and 13.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and requires the claimed
shower to include a foot operated pump for introducing the
pressurized air into the second chamber. Du Plooy discloses
such a foot pump 26.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and calls for the foot pump
to be enclosed in a flexible container and connected to the
second chamber by a flexible air line. Du Plooy’s foot pump
26 is connected to air compartment 20 by a flexible pipe or
air line 28. Although Du Plooy does not disclose the pump as
being enclosed in a flexible container, the examiner’s
conclusion (see page 4 in the answer) that this feature would
have been an obvious matter of choice is reasonable. It is
well settled that a conclusion of obviousness may be based on
common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary
skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a
particular reference.
In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA
1969). Here, it would have been an obvious matter of common
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007