Appeal No. 96-1637
Application 08/130,940
Concerning claims 4-6, 8, 9, and 12, the rejection of
these claims will not be sustained essentially for the same reason
that the rejection of claim 3 will not be sustained. There is no
prior art evidence teaching the passing wire through a hole in sea
ice. Still further, these claims define over the prior art by
reciting that the wire is a ground wire.
Summary
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as their invention is reversed.
b) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hine is reversed.
c) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hine and Rogers
is affirmed as to claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 14, and is
reversed as to claims 3-6, 8, 9 and 12.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007