Appeal No. 1997-1397
Application 08/411,245
skilled artisan from locating both the detector and the
oscillators at the surface because it then would not have been
possible to obtain the type of readings of interest to Farr.
In view of the fact that the examiner’s proposed modification
of Farr’s apparatus would render
it unsuitable for its intended purpose, it cannot be said that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. Ex parte Rosenfeld, 130 USPQ 113, 115 (Bd. App. 1961).
We have carefully considered the teachings of Smith,
Johnson and Clay, but do not believe their collective
teachings to be sufficient to persuade one of ordinary skill
in the art to go against the clear objectives of Farr by
providing both the oscillators and detectors thereof at the
surface, as proposed by the examiner. Accordingly, we are
unable to sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 11-
14.
Summary
The standing rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The standing rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. §
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007