Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 22
Application No. 09/716,045
placement of this type would be appropriate. In such a configuration, it will be
readily apparent that suitable ducting, and possibly directional louvers, may be
provided to direct the air stream driven by the fan into the air containment unit.
Due to the size of the air containment unit necessary to provide a user or a plurality of
users with sufficient space to move around during a simulated free fall, Methfessel
asserts (column 7, lines 45-65) that it would not be practicable to provide, on a mobile,
transportable skydiving simulator apparatus, a permanent vertical duct. Instead, the air
containment unit 100 will be collapsible. The preferred embodiment of Figure 1 depicts
the air containment unit 100 as being an inflatable, annular containment tube 104 that,
when inflated, defines an inner chamber 106 into which the upwardly flowing air from
the fan will be channeled such that a person or persons within the inner chamber will be
subjected to an airflow of a velocity approximating, and alternatively slightly exceeding
and slightly less than, the terminal free fall velocity of that person or those persons. An
alternative air containment unit 400 is depicted in Figure 4. The air containment unit
400 is not a pliant, inflatable polymer tube 104, but is instead constructed of a plurality
of rigid telescoping plastic panels 402 that are designed to be quickly assembled into an
air containment tube 404 at successive locations, and later disassembled for transport.
Based on our analysis and review of Methfessel and claim 1, it is our opinion that
the only difference is the limitation that "said column of air moves in laminar flow in at
least an upstream portion of said column of air."
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007