Appeal No. 96-2779
Application 08/151,944
for the day’s use, utilizing Brown’s sandals to impress
messages into the sand of a beach that has been earlier raked
smooth would result in the method of claim 5. Thus, we will
sustain the rejection of claim 5, the teachings of Giliberti
being mere surplusage to the rejection.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further requires that
the step of impressing by rolling take place “immediately
subsequent to raking.” As noted above in our discussion of
claims 4, 7 and 8, the combined teachings of Brown and
Moorhead do not teach, suggest or infer the step of smoothing
compliant ground immediately subsequent to impressing a
pattern therein. Giliberti does not make up for the
deficiencies of Brown and Moorhead in this regard. It follows
that the rejection of claim 6 based on Brown, Moorhead and
Giliberti is not sustainable.
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and adds that the “means
for smoothing” includes a rake. While we appreciate that
Giliberti’s brush 86 for raking sand responds to the rake
requirement of dependent claim 15, Giliberti’s teachings do
not make up for the above noted deficiencies of Brown and
Moorhead with respect to basic combination needed to meet the
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007