Appeal 2006-2384
Application 10/003,037
The rejections maintained by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-15, 28, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the Appellants’ own admission of prior
art (C2 and C4) in view of Gerber;
2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11-13, 28, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilson in view of Morgan; and
3. Claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wilson and Morgan, further in view of C1.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Issue
The issue before us is: Has the Examiner properly established a prima
facie case of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C § 103(a)?
B. Facts
The following Factual Findings are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence:
1. Gerber and C4 describe and illustrate a cover system including a
membrane and a flotation member with a float and float
compartment member as required by claim 1 (e.g., Gerber, col. 7,
ll. 55-68; C4 Fig.)
2. Neither Gerber nor C4 include a plurality of gas-relief
passageways positioned as required by claims 1 and 28.
3. C2 describes a cover system including blocks of insulation
(floats) sealed between membrane sheets to form casings. The
casings are laced together to leave an opening between adjacent
casings through which gases can escape. (See C2, p. 2, cols. 1-3,
and the figure on p. 2.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013