Appeal No. 96-4183
Application 08/235,625
Moser et al. (Moser) 3,190,388 June 22, 1965
Schuster 3,191,141 June 22, 1965
Cox et al. (Cox) 4,293,936 Oct. 6, 1981
Kent et al. (Kent) 4,302,826 Nov. 24, 1981
Lygas 4,636,999 Jan. 13, 1987
Hoyle et al. (Hoyle) 4,850,450 July 25, 1989
Hsu et al. (Hsu) 4,870,627 Sep. 26, 1989
Brie et al. (Brie) 4,888,740 Dec. 19, 1989
Waters, K.H., Reflection Seismology, pages 195-196, John Wiley
and Sons, 1981, TN 269, W37.
THE REJECTION
Claims 7 and 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
“as being unpatentable over Lygas or Kent et al when taken with
Lord et al or Cox et al, and Ely (US Patent) and Hoyle et al, or
Schuster or Moser et al, and Waters or Brie et al.” (Final
Rejection at page 2).2
2By our count, the examiner’s uses of the word “or” in the
statement of the rejection results in no less than 24 different
and distinct possible combinations of references. It is
questionable whether this circumstance fulfills the examiner’s
basic duty to clearly inform applicants of the evidentiary basis
of the rejection. In this instance, however, we decline to
remand the present application to the examiner for clarification
since the explanation of the rejection found in the body of the
answer clarifies the manner in which the references are applied
to the degree necessary for us to decide the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal on the merits.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007