Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
We find that Miyamoto’s teaching of the advantages of deep sea water for
aquaculture (Miyamoto, at 2) is alone sufficient to have established a reason
to have modified Meilahn’s aquaculture tank by pumping deep sea water
into it, especially in view of Meilahn’s disclosure that “water may be drawn
from different depths, such that water that is free of surface contaminants . . .
is provided to the tank” (Meilahn, col. 4, ll. 39-42). Thus, we do not
consider it necessary to address the additional teachings of Iseki and
Nomura.
Appellant contends that “Miyamoto’s pool is adapted for raising fish
by including heating and cooling equipment (see pp. 9-10 . . .) to keep the
water temperature from getting to[o] high or too low for the fish. The
applicant is not aware of any swimming pool that contains such specialized
equipment for both heating and cooling” (Reply Br. 10).
We do not find this argument persuasive. The Examiner relied upon
Miyamoto for its teaching of the advantages of deep seawater (Answer 10).
Therefore, while Miyamoto describe regulating the temperature of the water
in the tank, this teaching does not detract from its other disclosure about the
benefit of deep seawater in aquaculture and its relevance to Meilahn, which
also relates to the field of aquaculture. Furthermore, Miyamoto does not
require heating and cooling equipment as stated by Appellant. Miyamoto
merely indicates that the water may be cooled or heated depending on the
type of fish cultured (Miyamoto, at 2).
Appellant also argues that “one skilled in the art of swimming pool
design and construction would have no motivation to look to fish hatchery
literature to solve swimming pool-related problems” (Reply Br. 10). We are
not convinced. “In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013