Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
specific power processor described in O’Sullivan; thus, we do not find
Appellant’s remarks address the Examiner’s sound basis for combining the
references. Meilahn specifically discloses that its remote aquaculture system
can be supported by a service platform comprising generators (Meilahn, at
col. 6, ll. 45-51), providing the motivation to have utilized a solar or wind
generator which O’Sullivan teaches are known sources of energy for remote
locations (O’Sullivan, at col. 1, ll. 15-22). Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claims 22-25.
Rejections over Atwell
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Meilahn in view of Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato, further in view of Atwell.
Claim 27 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, Puncochar, O’Sullivan, and Atwell.
Claims 26 and 27 are drawn to the swimming pool of claim 8, further
comprising a sea-water desalination plant.
The Examiner finds that Atwell discloses a desalination system for
providing potable water (Answer 20). The Examiner contends that “it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of marine structures at
the time of invention to further modify the device shown by the combination
of Meilahn … [Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato] . . . to provide a potable
source of water on the pool structure for consumption (Answer 20).
Appellant contends that “none of the cited art discloses or suggests a
deep-sea water swimming pool as claimed herein” (Reply Br. 15).
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013