Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
the cited references disclose a swimming pool structure containing deep-sea
water as recited in the claims (Reply Br. 11).
The Examiner’s reference to a “swimming pool structure” (Answer
11-12) is clearly a reference to Meilahn’s aquaculture tank which we have
found meets the limitation in claim 8 of a “swimming pool structure.” The
Examiner provides a reasonable explanation as to why a person of skill in
the art would have been prompted to outfit Meilahn’s tank with a propulsion
device: to relocate it within a body of water. We agree with this reasoning
since Meilahn teaches that its aquaculture system is “independent of land
and may be positioned at any desired location” (Meilahn, abstract). Thus,
we affirm the rejection of claim 11. Claims 12 and 13 fall with claim 11
because their patentability was not separately addressed.
Rejections over Sibinski
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Meilahn in view of Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato, further in view of
Sibinski.
Claims 15, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Meilahn in view of Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato, further in
view of Mougin and Sibinski.
Claims 14 and 15 are drawn to the sea-water swimming pool of claim
8 which further comprises “a plurality of extensions protruding from said
swimming pool structure and adapted to protect the swimming pool from
attacks by sea creatures.”
The Examiner finds that Sibinski teaches the use of a plurality of
extensions to protect a structure from attack by fish (Answer 12). The
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013