Appeal No. 2004-1439 Page 3
Application No. 10/044,142
OPINION
The Rejection over Ivanovich as Applied to Claim 25
Ivanovich describes a number of self-erecting shelters in a variety of shapes and
configurations. As pointed out by the Examiner, Figure 1 shows one particular shelter, a
tent, with an elliptical floor 10. As found by the Examiner, floor 10 of the tent meets the
requirements of the panel of claim 25 (Answer, p. 3). The Examiner acknowledges that the
tent of Figure 1 is not disclosed by Ivanovich as including flotation devices, but points out
that the floating boat shelter of Figure 11 described by Ivanovich is disclosed as including
such flotation devices, i.e., buoyant elements 63 (Answer, p. 4; see also Ivanovich, col. 3, ll.
31-34). The Examiner concludes that modifying a Figure 1 type shelter by adding the type
of flotation devices depicted in Figure 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art (Answer, p. 4).
Appellant argues that the prior art provides no motivation or suggestion for making
the combination and that the suggested combination would be inoperative and would destroy
the function of the structure (Brief, pp. 3–9). In making these arguments Appellant focuses
on the literal disclosure of the embodiments of Figures 1 and 11 of Ivanovich without taking
into account the broader teachings of Ivanovich or the general knowledge in the prior art as
shown by the evidence of record as a whole. This not the correct approach: In making a
determination of obviousness, one must take into account the level of ordinary skill in the
field of the invention as well as the full scope and content of the prior art, the differences
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007