Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
The Examiner finds that Puncochar teaches a means for generating
and mixing air bubbles in water (Answer 16). The Examiner contends that,
based on Meilahn’s disclosure of “the desirability of aeration in tanks (col.
5, lines 26 and 30)” (Answer 16), persons of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to include such “means in the pool structure for
dissolving oxygen as desired” (Answer 17).
Appellant contends that “Puncochar does not disclose mixing bubbles
into deep-sea water. Moreover, the Puncochar swimming pool consists of
screens that allow surface sea-water to freely diffuse in and out of the pool,
and, accordingly, it is completely devoid of any suggestion to use deep-sea
water as the same would instantly mix with the surface water (thereby
defeating the purpose of the present invention)” (Reply Br. 13).
We do find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Meilahn expressly
describes the addition of oxygen and air into its tank, e.g., using an oxygen
diffuser or an air lift pump (Meilahn, at col. 4, l. 65 to col. 5, l. 30). Thus,
the suggestion to aerate deep-sea water is not provided by Puncochar as
Appellant contends, but by Meilahn. Puncochar’s teaching is relied on to
the extent that it describes a specific means for producing air bubbles in
water which would have been recognized by persons of skill in the art as an
appropriate method to aerate water as suggested by Meilahn. We find no
defect in this reasoning. “The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 20 and 21.
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013