Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
Rejections over O’Sullivan
Claims 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Meilahn in view of Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato, further in view of
O’Sullivan.
Claims 23 and 25 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, Sibinski, Puncochar, and O’Sullivan.
Claims 22 and 23 are drawn to the swimming pool of claim 8 which
further comprises a “means for solar power generation.” Claims 24 and 25
are drawn to the swimming pool of claim 8 which further comprises a
“means for wind power generation.”
The Examiner finds that O’Sullivan “teach[es] the known use of
power generation by solar and wind sources to operate domestic and
industrial facilities (col. 1, lines 38 through 52)” (Answer 18). The
Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to modify the Meilahn’s device to “provide the pool with a
renewable energy system capable of use at remote locations and for reducing
operating costs” (Answer 18).
Appellant argues there would be no motivation to have utilized
O’Sullivan’s multi-mode AC power processor “because an AC power source
likely would not be available at a ‘remote location’ and a hybrid energy
system is likely to be more expensive than a single source (such as a diesel
generator)” (Reply Br. 14-15).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relied
upon O’Sullivan for its teaching that solar and wind power generators are
well known renewable sources of energy. The Examiner did not rely on the
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013