Appeal No. 1999-0178
Application No. 08/658,849
containers or bottles 57 have a substantially spherical shape.
Accordingly, the bottles 57 would not have suggested a
substantially spherical shape for the container 21 of Meikle.
With respect to the emergency capsule shell 21, it clearly is
described as being spherical in shape. However, this shell is
intended to be a life supporting environment for saturation
divers if life support systems of the main decompression
chamber 14 fail. As such, it is clear to us that one having
ordinary skill in the art would not have derived a suggestion
from the shape of Reiher’s shell 21 to configure Meikle’s
container 21, intended to be carried by a person, with a
substantially spherical shape, as now claimed.
Since the evidence of obviousness does not provide
support for the proposed modification of the Meikle teaching,
the rejection of claim 1 cannot be sustained. A review of the
other applied patents to Meidenbauer, Jr., Vestrem, and Kranz,
cited to show other claimed features, reveals to us that they
do not overcome the noted deficiency of the combined teachings
of Meikle and Reiher. Based upon the above deficiency in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007