Appeal No. 1997-1397
Application 08/411,245
rejection of claims 11-14, all the claims currently pending in
the application. An amendment filed subsequent to the final
rejection has not been entered.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a seismic surveying
method. Independent claim 11, a copy of which is found in an
appendix to appellant’s brief, is illustrative of the appealed
subject matter.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in
support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Clay, Jr. (Clay) 2,906,363 Sept. 29, 1959
Smith et al. (Smith) 3,221,297 Nov. 30, 1965
Farr et al. (Farr) 3,881,168 Apr. 29, 1975
Johnson et al. (Johnson) 4,758,998 Jul. 19,
1988
Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. In the examiner's view, the terms “many times
greater” and “relatively short delay time” appearing in claim
11 “are relative terms and thus, indefinite” (answer, page 4).
Claims 11-14 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Farr in view of Smith and further
in view of Johnson and Clay.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007