Appeal No. 1998-1783 Page 2
Application No. 08/566,681
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a process of forming
an in-situ piling. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in
the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Reed et al. (Reed) 4,659,259 Apr. 21,
1987
Claims 1, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Reed.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 11, mailed December 22, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 10, filed November 11, 1997) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007