Appeal No. 2003-1210
Application No. 09/295,212
performed by Bayh’s electrical connector means. Similarly, we do
not perceive and the examiner does not explain how Bayh’s
apparatus, if modified to include use of a guard device as
proposed by the examiner, would be capable of performing the
functions of
inserting and retrieving submersible pump 70, electric motor 50
and related components from a selected downhole location as
desired by patentee (e.g., see lines 8-20 in column 3).
For the above stated reasons, we determine that the applied
reference evidence adduced by the examiner fails to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner’s Section
103 rejection of claims 1-9 as being unpatentable over Bayh in
view of Kramer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007