Appeal 2006-2035
Application 09/923,936
Hawthorne that increased buoyancy is undesirable. Nor is there a disclosure
in Hawthorne that the fabric impregnation synthetic rubber (col. 1, l. 22) and
the proofing materials (col. 1, ll. 66-68) do not render the empty vessel
buoyant. It would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that
buoyancy of Hawthorne’s empty vessel is desirable, and that if the buoyancy
is not provided by the synthetic rubber impregnation material or the proofing
material, then a material such as that of McCullough should be applied to
provide the desired buoyancy.
For the above reasons we conclude that the Appellants’ claimed
invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over
the applied prior art.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hawthorne in
view of McCullough is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(2006).
AFFIRMED
hh
FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG
745 FIFTH AVENUE-10TH FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10151
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013