Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 19
Application No. 09/716,045
above. Second, the screens 23 on the inside wall 22 of Kitchen's vertical chamber 4 do
not impact on the smoothness of the inside wall. While the screens 23 would affect any
laminar air flow proceeding upwardly along inside wall 22, claim 1 only requires that the
surface of the primary wall be smooth such that the column of air moves in laminar flow
in at least an upstream portion of the column of air. These limitations are met by the
combined teachings of Kitchen and Larsen since the inside wall 22 of Kitchen's vertical
chamber 4 is smooth and the column of air suggested and taught by Larsen's apparatus
applied to Kitchen's vertical chamber 4 would move in laminar flow in at least an
upstream portion of the column of air (i.e., the portion of the column of air upstream of
the screens 23 and the skydiver 21). Lastly, since the secondary wall is only "optionally
provided" in claim 4, the limitations thereof are met by the applied prior art.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kitchen in view of Larsen is
affirmed.
The appellants have grouped claims 1 and 2 as standing or falling together.6
Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claim 2 falls with claim 1. Thus, it
5(...continued)
6 See page 5 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007