Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
Atwell was cited for its teaching of a desalination system for
providing water, not for teaching a deep-sea swimming pool structure.
Thus, Appellant has not identified an error in the rejection and we find none.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claims 26 and 27.
Rejections over Rolfson
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Meilahn in view of Iseki, Nomura, and Miyamato, further in view of
Rolfson.
Claim 29 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, Atwell, and Rolfson.
Claims 28 and 29 are drawn to the swimming pool of claim 8, further
comprising “a check valve which only allows an upward flow of the deep-
sea water.”
The Examiner finds that Rolfson teaches a check valve in an air
supply tube for restricting the flow of air in one direction (Answer 22). The
Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to have included a check
valve in the deep-sea water intake valve in view of Rolfson’s teaching that it
is “advantageous for use in supply pipes for restricting flow in one direction
. . . to prevent the reversal of flow of water” (Answer 22).
Appellant argues that Rolfson’s disclosure is of a valve in an air-
supply tube to exclude water from it, not to control the direction of water
flow in a water collection pipe (Reply Br. 16).
We are not convinced by this argument. We do not read Rolfson’s
disclosure so restrictively. Rolfson’s disclosure is evidence that check
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013