Ex Parte Millhollin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2006

10263140 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

_______________

Ex parte JON B. MILLHOLLIN

______________

Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140
_______________

ON BRIEF

_______________

Before KIMLIN, WALTZ, and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s final rejection of claims 1
through 5 and 7 through 15. The remaining claims pending in this application are
claims 16, 17, and 19 through 23, which stand allowed by the examiner (Brief, page 3;
Answer, page 2, ¶(3)). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to appellant, the invention is directed to a flotation collar for a water
park craft having an inflatable outer chamber that contains a series of containment bags
containing a buoyant material that partially fills the outer chamber (Brief, page 3).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:

A flotation collar for a water park craft comprising:
a plurality of water-tight containment bags defining a plurality of inner
Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

2
chambers containing a buoyant material; and
an inflatable outer chamber having a flexible outer wall surrounding the
containment bags, so that the containment bags partially fill the outer chamber.

The examiner has relied on the following references as evidence of obviousness:
Lederman 4,011,611 Mar. 15, 1977
Spieldiener et al. (Spieldiener) 4,516,943 May 14, 1985
Givens 4,790,784 Dec. 13, 1988
Wolfe 5,304,082 Apr. 19, 1994
Hansen 2002/0096101 A1 Jul. 25, 2002
(published U.S. Patent Application)

Cooney 2 293 357 A Mar. 27, 1996
(published UK Patent Application)

The following rejections have been appealed:
(1) claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spieldiener in view of Wolfe and Hansen (Answer, page 3);
(2) claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under § 103(a) over the references as recited
in (1) further in view of Cooney (Answer, page 4);
(3) claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under § 103(a) over the references as recited
in (1) further in view of Lederman (id.); and
(4) claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under § 103(a) over the references as recited
in (1) further in view of Givens (id.).
Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of appellant’s
Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

3

arguments, we affirm all rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. Rejection (1)
The examiner finds that Spieldiener discloses a flotation collar for a water park
ride with a plurality of water-tight chambers 53 with accompanying valves 55 (Answer,
page 3). The examiner recognizes that Spieldiener does not disclose inner bags
containing a buoyant material as required by claim 1 on appeal (id.). Therefore the
examiner applies Wolfe and Hansen, where Wolfe is applied to show inner bags 18 and
Hansen is applied for its disclosure of inner buoyant foam chambers 21 with an outer
inflatable wall 25 (id.).1 From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time of appellant’s invention to
form the flotation collar of Spieldiener with inner bags, as taught by Wolfe, “for additional
buoyancy and safety” and to fill the chambers with buoyant material, as taught by
Hansen, for “improved safety by providing flotation even when the inflatable chamber
has lost its airtight integrity” (Answer, sentence bridging pages 3-4). We agree.

1In the event of further or continuing prosecution of the subject matter on appeal,
the examiner should consider the patentability of at least claim 1 in view of Hansen or
Wolfe alone. These references disclose an inflatable outer chamber having a flexible
wall surrounding the partially filled chamber, which is filled with a plurality of water-tight
containment bags containing a buoyant material (i.e., see Figure 2 of Hansen with its
inner and outer covers and Figures 1, 2 and 4 of Wolfe with its inflatable bladders within
the inflatable main body).
Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

4
Appellant argues that nothing in any of the references teaches or suggests a
“chamber within a chamber” design in which the inner chamber contains a buoyant
material (Brief, page 5). Appellant argues that this particular design is critical since, in
the event that the outer chamber fails, the inner containment bags provide sufficient
buoyancy to prevent listing (id.).
Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

5
These arguments are not persuasive. As correctly stated by the examiner
(Answer, page 5), Wolfe clearly teaches a “chamber within a chamber” design by
disclosing inflatable bladders 18 within the inflatable main body 12, where the “bladders
aid in providing additional buoyancy to the main body, should it lose filling gas” (col. 2, ll.
39-41). Furthermore, the design taught by Hansen would also have been considered by
one of ordinary skill in this art a “chamber within a chamber” design as shown in Figure
2, namely where the inflatable collar 20 with unitary outer cover 23 has one or more
inflatable internal air bladders 25, and each internal air bladder 25 further includes a
foam insert 21 to provide added stability in the event that the air bladders lose water
and airtight integrity (page 1, ¶[0009]; page 2, ¶[0018]; pages 2-3, ¶[0021]; and page 3,
¶[0023]). Accordingly, we determine that Hansen and Wolfe teach the same “chamber
within a chamber” design as recited in claim 1 on appeal for the same function, namely
to provide buoyancy in the event of an air loss in the outer chamber.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we determine that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of appellant’s
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence weighs most heavily
in favor of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we affirm the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 under section 103(a) over Spieldiener in
view of Wolfe and Hansen.
Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

6

B. Rejection (2)
With regard to the rejection of claims 3 and 10, the examiner applies Spieldiener,
Wolfe and Hansen as discussed above (Answer, page 4). The examiner recognizes
that Spieldiener does not disclose gas filled balls as a buoyant material (id.). Therefore
the examiner applies Cooney for its teaching of using gas filled balls as a buoyant
material in a flotation device (id.).2 From these findings, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to use the gas filled balls as buoyant

2We note that, in the event of further or continuing prosecution of the claimed
subject matter, the examiner should consider the patentability of at least claim 1 on
appeal over Cooney alone. As noted by the examiner, this reference teaches an
inflatable outer chamber having a flexible outer wall surrounding containment bags
(inflated balls) that partially fill the outer chamber, where this plurality of water-tight
containment bags contain buoyant material (air). As discussed infra, the principle of
Cooney can be applied to boats.
Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

7
material, as taught by Cooney, for improved safety in the flotation device of Spieldiener,
Wolfe and Hansen (id.). We agree.
Appellant argues that Cooney is taken from an unrelated field, and there is
nothing in Cooney or the other references that teaches or suggests the combination of
these references (Brief, page 6).
These arguments are also not persuasive. As correctly noted by the examiner
(Answer, page 5), Cooney specifically teaches that his principle may be applied to
“hovercraft, balloons, inflatable aircraft wings, airships, lifejackets, lifebuoys, beacons or
boats” (abstract; pages 2-3), or wherever “it is essential that a fracture of the outer layer
must not result in deflation of the whole” (page 3). Accordingly, Cooney is directed to
the same field of endeavor as appellant’s invention, as well as concerned with the same
problem facing appellant. See In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1577, 35 USPQ2d 1116,
1120 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(Applicability of references as prior art is determined in
accordance with whether its teachings place it within the field of appellant’s endeavor
or, alternatively, within the field reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
addressed by appellant). Additionally, we note that Cooney is concerned with the same
problem facing Spieldiener, Wolfe, and Hansen, namely a redundant safety flotation
device (see Spieldiener, col. 2, ll. 52-55; Wolfe, col. 2, ll. 39-41; and Hansen, page 2,
¶[0021] and [0023]). Therefore we determine that the examiner has established
sufficient and reasonable motivation or suggestion to combine the references as
Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

8
proposed in the rejection.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we determine that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of appellant’s
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence weighs most heavily
in favor of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we affirm the
rejection of claims 3 and 10 over the cited references.
C. Rejection (3)
With regard to the rejection of claims 4 and 11, this rejection is similar to rejection
(2) with the exception that claims 4 and 11 specify different buoyant materials than
claims 3 and 10. The examiner adopts the factual findings from Spieldiener, Wolfe and
Hansen as discussed above, further citing Lederman for its teaching of beads used as
buoyant material (Answer, page 4). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to form the device of
Spieldiener, Wolfe and Hansen with beads for the buoyant material, as taught by
Lederman (id.). We agree.
Appellant argues that Lederman is drawn from an unrelated field and there is
nothing in any of the cited references that teaches or suggests this combination (Brief,
page 7). These arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted by the examiner
(Answer, page 6), Lederman is directed to personal flotation devices, which is the same
Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

9
field as Spieldiener and appellant (abstract; col. 5, ll. 10-21). See In re GPAC, supra.
Lederman also teaches the advantages of expanded polystyrene foam pellets or beads
as buoyant material for this flotation device (col. 4, ll. 50-60). Accordingly, we determine
that the examiner has established adequate motivation to use the buoyant material
suggested by Lederman in the device of Spieldiener, Wolfe and Hansen.
For the foregoing reasons as well as those stated in the Answer, we determine
that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness over the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of appellant’s
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in
favor of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 11 under section 103(a).
D. Rejection (4)
Appellant does not provide any specific argument concerning this rejection (Brief,
page 7). Therefore we adopt the examiner’s factual findings and conclusion of law as
set forth on page 4 of the Answer. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 7 and 13 under
section 103(a) is also affirmed.
E. Summary
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Spieldiener in view of Wolfe and Hansen is affirmed. Similarly, the rejections of claims
3 and 10, claims 4 and 11, and claims 7 and 13 under section 103(a) over the base
Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

10
references to Spieldiener, Wolfe and Hansen, further in view of Cooney, Lederman, and
Givens, respectively, are affirmed. Therefore the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2004).

AFFIRMED

EDWARD C. KIMLIN ) Administrative
Patent Judge )
)
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
) )
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )

TAW/TF

Appeal No. 2006-0627
Application No. 10/263,140

12
DORR, CARSON & BIRNEY, P.C.
ONE CHERRY CENTER
501 SOUTH CHERRY STREET
SUITE 800
DENVER, CO 80246