Appeal No. 2004-1293
Application No. 09/989,330
Ward to arrive at an aquarium encompassed by claims 4 and 5.
Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found
it prima facie obvious to manufacture James’s aquarium in the
shape of a generally spherical bowl as shown in Ward with a
reasonable expectation of obtaining the aesthetic qualities
attributable to such an aquarium having a generally spherical
shape.
Claim 23 recites that “the contents of the second recess
are isolated from the liquid occupying the container.” Ward
teaches that an aquarium may be provided with a terrarium to
sustain terrestrial living plants and animals. (Column 1, lines
30-36.) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it prima facie obvious to provide a terrarium in the
aquarium of James as suggested by Ward in order to sustain
terrestrial plant life.
D. Claims 14, 15, and 19 through 21 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
James and U.S. Patent 4,074,997 issued to Cohen on Feb. 21,
1978, copy attached.
Claims 14, 15, and 19 through 21 recite that the substrate
medium is a “synthetic material, comprises “fiberglas batting,”
or is “an organic material.” Cohen teaches aquarium plant
substrates are known in the art to include organic material such
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007