Appeal No. 1999-1825
Application 08/799,258
In the preferred embodiment the entire tool,
bucket auger 10 [i.e., cylindrical body 18], handle
12, extensions 14 and 16, can be made to be five
pounds or less which can be back packed by a soldier
or personnel [column 9, lines 3 through 11].
Independent claims 19 and 24 recite a “kit” comprising in
combination a bucket-type auger system, a plurality of
explosive charges, detonation means and a lightweight carrying
pack for containing the foregoing elements. Clements’ back-
packed assembly of bucket auger components responds to the
claim limitations requiring a kit comprising a bucket-type
auger system and a lightweight carrying pack for containing
the auger system. It does not respond, however, to the
limitations requiring the carrying pack to also contain a
plurality of explosive charges and detonation means. While
Clements does describe the use of explosive charges in bores
dug by bucket auger 10 to form a fox hole, such use does not
embody, and would not have suggested, the inclusion of the
explosive charges and their detonation means in the Clements
carrying pack. Notwithstanding the examiner’s determination
to the contrary (see page 6 in the answer), this deficiency in
Clements finds no cure in Walker’s disclosure of the safety
benefits of binary explosive munitions systems or in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007