Appeal 2007-0871
Application 10/967,816
utilize a simplified one-way valve between the tank and the expander. In
our view, it would have been a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary
skill in the art to balance the advantage of simplicity of discharging the gas
to the ambient water while using a one-way valve between the tank and the
expander, and the disadvantage of requiring a larger storage tank for the gas.
As evidenced by the applied prior art, it was known in the art of personal
buoyancy systems to employ either a closed system comprising the storage
tank and the expander or an open system which expels gas from the
expander to the ambient water.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that "modifying the
closed system of McLane to incorporate the open system of Schuler would
have fundamentally changed McLane's principle of operation" (page 5 of
principal Br., penultimate para.). We concur with the Examiner that the
essential principal of McLane's operation, disclosed at column 2, lines 32-
58, is controlling the amount of gas in the bladder in order to control the
level of submersion of the swimmer which, in conjunction with the taper of
the fin members, provides for forward propulsion of the swimmer. We do
not subscribe to Appellant's argument that the basic principal underlying the
McLane system is specifically associated with a closed system. As
explained above, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to employ, as alternatives, an open or closed system.
We also do not find merit in Appellant's argument that a closed system is
more associated with a system for untrained swimmers than experienced
ones.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013