Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 14
Application No. 09/716,045
The obviousness rejection based on Kitchen and Larsen
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kitchen in view of Larsen.
Claims 1 and 4 read as follows:
1. In a free fall simulator wherein a cylindrical primary wall is provided, said
primary wall defining a chamber, means for generating a column of air under
pressure in said chamber, said column of air moving from bottom to top, the
pressure being sufficient to support one or more flyers therein, said primary wall
having a surface, said surface being contiguous with and defining the diameter
of said column, the surface of said primary wall being smooth such that said
column of air moves in laminar flow in at least an upstream portion of said
column of air.
4. The free fall simulator of Claim 1 wherein a secondary wall is optionally
provided, said secondary wall having an inner surface, said inner surface being
of a pastel color so as to provide a background for use of blue screen
technology.
Kitchen discloses a skydiving simulator which combines a vertical air column
chamber with a video projection system on the interior wall. Kitchen's vertical air
column chamber utilizes a closed cylinder having a fan system supporting a vertical
column of air at about 120 mph. A virtual reality environment is created as the skydiver,
while suspended, sees actual film footage of scenarios descending toward earth. A
skydiver backpack houses a transmitter which interactively steps the skydiver through
emergency procedures.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007