Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 20
Application No. 09/716,045
follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kitchen in view of Larsen is also affirmed.
The obviousness rejection based on Kitchen, Larsen and Methfessel
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kitchen in view of Larsen and Methfessel.
Claim 3 reads as follows:
The free fall simulator of Claim 1 wherein a camera is provided within said
chamber, said camera being remotely positionable and recessed out of said
column of air to photograph said flyers against the background provided by the
walls of said chamber.
Methfessel's invention relates to skydiving simulators, and more particularly to a
skydiving simulator apparatus that is designed and constructed to be mobile and
portable, and that is designed to operate from substantially ground level employing a
readily assembled air containment unit. Methfessel teaches (column 10, lines 9-13)
that "[t]he use of a transparent air containment unit will also allow the apparatus to be
equipped with an externally mounted camera or a plurality of cameras for taking
photographs or videos of the activities taking place in the air containment unit."
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007