Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 21
Application No. 09/716,045
While the applied prior art is suggestive of a camera mounted externally of the
chamber, the applied prior art does not teach or suggest a camera within the chamber
as set forth in claim 3. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kitchen in view of Larsen and Methfessel
is reversed.
The obviousness rejection based on Methfessel and Larsen
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 6, 10, 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Methfessel in view of Larsen.
As shown in Figures 1-3, Methfessel teaches a skydiving simulator 10 mounted
on a flatbed trailer 12. An enclosure 20 is secured to the horizontal surface 14 of the
flatbed trailer. The enclosure 20 serves several purposes, a first of which is to provide
an elevated deck 24 above which the air containment unit 100 is to be disposed. The
enclosure 20 also preferably has a vertical cylindrical fan housing 26 constructed
therein to channel air flow produced by a fan 28 upwardly through the air containment
unit 100. Methfessel teaches (column 5, lines 15-27) that:
It should also be readily understood that it would be possible to
alternatively employ a fan that is not disposed directly below unit 100, such as a
vertically oriented fan, used in conjunction with appropriate ducting, to channel
the airflow upwardly into the air containment unit 100. In addition, it would be
possible to employ a horizontally oriented fan not placed directly under the air
containment unit, and there may be circumstances for which an offset fan
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007