Appeal No. 95-2255
Application No. 07/962,035
independent claim 10. In these respects, see pages 3 and 4 of
the Answer.
We cannot agree with the examiner's conclusion that the
appellants' claimed method would have been obvious over the
disclosure of Forestek. As correctly indicated by the
appellants, the goal of patentee's blasting fluid stream
operation differs from that of the here claimed method.
Specifically, the goal of patentee's operation is "to compact
the particles in the fissures" (Abstract, lines 14-15) whereas
the goal of the appellants' claimed method is "to cause
deposition of a layer of the material of said particles"
(independent claim 10, last line). We appreciate that some of
the particles in Forestek's blasting stream may become lodged
permanently in the fissures (see lines 6 through 11 in column
2). However, the Forestek reference contains nothing to
support the proposition that such lodged particles may be
properly regarded as corresponding to the layer of the
material of particles which are deposited by the appellants'
claimed method. Thus, because the goals and consequences of
patentee's operation are dissimilar from those of the here
claimed method, there is no adequate support for the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007