Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
Sibinski teaches a simple solution: pins to prevent fish from leaping
over a dam (Sibinski, at col. 1, ll. 31). We agree with the Examiner that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found Sibinski’s solution for
dams reasonably pertinent to Meilahn’s deep sea water tank because both are
present in the same environment and exposed to the same risks. See In re
Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (The
two criteria for evaluating whether a reference is sufficiently analogous to
the invention are “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 14 and
15. Claims 17 and 19 fall with claims 14 and 15 because they were not
separately argued.
Rejections over Puncochar
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Meilahn in view of Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato, further in view of
Puncochar.
Claim 21 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, and Puncochar.
Claims 20 and 21 are drawn to the swimming pool of claim 8 which
further comprises “means for generating and mixing air bubbles into the
deep-sea water supplied” to the swimming pool.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013