Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140
arguments, we affirm all rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. Rejection (1)
The examiner finds that Spieldiener discloses a flotation collar for a water park
ride with a plurality of water-tight chambers 53 with accompanying valves 55 (Answer,
page 3). The examiner recognizes that Spieldiener does not disclose inner bags
containing a buoyant material as required by claim 1 on appeal (id.). Therefore the
examiner applies Wolfe and Hansen, where Wolfe is applied to show inner bags 18 and
Hansen is applied for its disclosure of inner buoyant foam chambers 21 with an outer
inflatable wall 25 (id.).1 From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time of appellant’s invention to
form the flotation collar of Spieldiener with inner bags, as taught by Wolfe, “for additional
buoyancy and safety” and to fill the chambers with buoyant material, as taught by
Hansen, for “improved safety by providing flotation even when the inflatable chamber
has lost its airtight integrity” (Answer, sentence bridging pages 3-4). We agree.
1In the event of further or continuing prosecution of the subject matter on appeal,
the examiner should consider the patentability of at least claim 1 in view of Hansen or
Wolfe alone. These references disclose an inflatable outer chamber having a flexible
wall surrounding the partially filled chamber, which is filled with a plurality of water-tight
containment bags containing a buoyant material (i.e., see Figure 2 of Hansen with its
inner and outer covers and Figures 1, 2 and 4 of Wolfe with its inflatable bladders within
the inflatable main body).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007