Appeal No. 2006-0970
Application No. 10/293,826
conditioner (Kantrowitz). [See Non-Final Rejection p. 3 and Answer p. 4] The appellant
responds that none of the references disclose use of an electric energy lifting panel to
lift a user and that the examiner has shown no motivation to combine the references so
as to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
We note that the examiner provides no evidence of motivation to combine the
references in a manner that would arrive at the claimed subject matter. The examiner
states
Taken all of these references and combining them it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to have made the claimed flying object.
[See Answer at p. 4]
We note in particular that there is nothing in any of these references to suggest
combining the capacitive thrust mechanisms of Naudin 1 and 2 and Brown 1 with the jet
pack of Moore. Thus, the examiner has failed to make a prima facie case for
obviousness because no motivation for having selected and assembled precisely those
aspects of the references picked by the examiner and having assembled those
references together to begin with is shown.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27 as rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Moore in view of Naudin
1, The Lifters Experiments or Naudin 2, How to Build and Replicate Yourself the Lifter1
Experiment., or Brown 1 and Kantrowitz
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007