Appeal 2007-0871
Application 10/967,816
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following for emphasis
only.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's factual determination that
McLane, like Appellant, discloses a method of underwater propulsion which
comprises equipping a user with a buoyancy compensator comprising a
controller, a tank containing at least one gas, and an expander wherein the
tank is operably connected to deliver the gas to the expander under the
control of the controller, and, also, providing a hydrofoil that is connected to
the user. As appreciated by the Examiner, McLane does not teach that the
controller operates to release the gas into the ambient water to decrease the
overall buoyancy. Rather, McLane teaches a closed system wherein a pump
is used to transfer air from the tank to the expander, or bladder, and vice
versa (see col. 3, ll. 1-4).
We fully concur with the Examiner, however, that Schuler evidences
the obviousness of modifying the system of McLane such that buoyancy is
decreased by expelling gas to the ambient water. Manifestly, if the gas is
expelled to the ambient water, as claimed, the storage tank of the gas must
be larger compared to McLane's tank for use over a comparable period of
time. We agree with the Examiner that the motivation to modify the system
of McLane in accordance with the claimed invention would have been to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013