Appeal 2006-1521
Application 09/815,877
“Dickerhoff’s mechanism could in fact be used within a semi-rigid structure
because of its own semi-rigid properties” (Answer 4), sheds little light on
how the combination would be successfully accomplished.
We reverse the § 103(a) rejection over Berke in view of Dickerhoff.
REMAND
The Examiner and Appellants should consider the patentability of at
least claim 34 under § 102(b) over Morten (US 5,075,910). Morten appears
to disclose controlling airflow through an inflatable device having two valve
means (i.e., two inlet ports) by providing a plug in the first valve means (i.e.,
first inlet port) (col. 4, ll. 31-65). Morten also appears to disclose placing
and retaining the plug in the first valve means (i.e., first inlet port) to restrict
egress of air therefrom, while inflating the device from the second valve
means (i.e., second inlet port) (col. 4, ll. 66-67; “the inflatable body member
11 is inflated using the first and/or second valve means 55, 63;” emphasis
added).
From Morten’s disclosure, either the first or the second valve means
(i.e., first or second inlet port) may be used to inflate the device. This
disclosure coupled with Morten’s disclosure that the “plug means 59”
prevents “air from escaping from the hollow interior 21 of the inflatable
body member” necessarily implies that when the second valve means (i.e.,
second inlet port) is used to inflate the device, then the first valve means
(i.e., the first inlet port) is plugged using the “plug means 59.”
It appears that at least claim 34 is anticipated by Morten.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007