Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
9) Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Meilahn in view of Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato, and further in view of
Atwell (US 4,536,257, issued Aug. 20, 1985);
10) Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Meilahn in view of Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato, and further in view
of Mougin, Sibinski, Puncochar, O’Sullivan, and Atwell;
11) Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Meilahn in view of Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato, further in view of
Rolfson (US 3,764,015, issued Oct. 9, 1973);
12) Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Meilahn in view of Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato, further in view of
Mougin, Sibinski, Puncochar, O’Sullivan, Atwell, and Rolfson; and
13) Claims 8-29 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking a written description.
The following claims are representative of the rejected claims:
8. A sea-water swimming pool, comprising:
a swimming pool structure floating on a sea; and
means for collecting and supplying deep-sea water
to the swimming pool structure, wherein surface-sea water and
aquatic animals are substantially excluded from said swimming
pool structure.
11. The sea-water swimming pool of Claim 8, further
comprising a propulsion device.
14. The sea-water swimming pool of Claim 8, further
comprising a plurality of extensions protruding from said
swimming pool structure and adapted to protect the swimming
pool from attacks by sea creatures.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013