Appeal No. 2000-1327
Application No. 08/402,624
a strong yet constant stream of water in that prior art water
guns that rely on compressed air to expel the water (e.g., the
water gun of the Johnson reference) suffered from a decrease in
the force of the stream of water as the water is expelled, and in
that prior art water guns that utilized a expandable bladder
filled and pressurized through a household water faucet (e.g.,
Shindo and Salmon) could not be refilled and repressurized unless
they were recoupled to the faucet. Turning to the particulars of
the proposed combination of reference teachings to render obvious
the subject matter of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17 and 18, Johnson
teaches a “compressed air” scheme for propelling water, and the
Shindo and Salmon references teach a “expandable bladder” scheme
for propelling water. As we now see it, the combined teachings
of Johnson and either Shindo or Salmon are deficient in that the
references lack a clear suggestion for discarding Johnson’s
“compressed air” scheme in favor of the “expandable bladder”
scheme of Shindo or Salmon while at the same time retaining
Johnson’s onboard manual pump means and water storage tank 38.
Based on the teaching of the references themselves, and without
benefit of appellant’s disclosure, we consider that one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention
would view the water gun of Johnson, with its “compressed air”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007