Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 24
Application No. 09/716,045
The appellants have grouped claims 1 to 3, 6, 10, 11 and 13 as standing or
falling together.7 Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 2, 3, 6, 10,
11 and 13 fall with claim 1. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Methfessel in view of Larsen is also affirmed.
The obviousness rejection based on Methfessel, Larsen and Louttit
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Methfessel and Larsen in view of Louttit.
Louttit discloses an apparatus for simulating free-fall conditions. The apparatus
comprises an upstanding wall structure enclosing an interior space having a port for
human access. A stream of air is directed upwardly by a number of large fans through
the space at a velocity such that the air stream can support a human body in a floating
condition within the space away from the walls. The upwardly diverging walls result in a
velocity gradient and the roof is shaped to direct the air to apertures between the roof
and the side walls for return through ducts to the fans. The fans have their own
protective housings and a rigid mesh floor is provided across the lower part of the
enclosed space to prevent falls into the fan chambers.
7 See page 5 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007