Appeal No.97-2716
Application 08/261,772
Nowell, but find nothing therein which would overcome the
deficiencies of Adams, Latimer and Wolff that we have noted
above.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain Rejection (1)
(i.e., claims 1, 4, 7 and 9 as being unpatentable over Adams in
view of Latimer and Wolff); Rejection (3) (i.e., claim 2 as being
unpatentable over Adams in view of Latimer, Wolff and Hadzicki);
Rejection (4) (i.e., claims 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 18 as being
unpatentable over Adams in view of Latimer, Wolff and Hull);
Rejection (5) (i.e., claim 11 as being unpatentable over Adams in
view of Latimer, Wolff and Goff); Rejection (6) (i.e., claim 13
as being unpatentable over Adams, Latimer, Wolff and Nowell);
Rejection (7) (i.e., claims 15 and 16 as being unpatentable
over Adams in view of Latimer, Wolff, Hull and Hadzicki); and
Rejection (8) (i.e., claims 17 and 19 as being unpatentable over
Adams in view of Latimer, Wolff, Nowell and Hull).
Rejections (2), (9) and (10):
Independent claim 20 expressly requires, inter alia, that
the ground position indicator be formed of a “substantially
pliable fiberglass mesh web.” Although it is not entirely clear
how the examiner intends to combine the references in order to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007