Appeal No. 1999-1825
Application 08/799,258
appellants’ admission that binary explosives and suitable
detonation means are known in the art.
Claims 19 and 24 further require the bucket-type auger
system to include a hollow material-retention bit and the
explosive charges to be stored in containers that nest within
the hollow material-retention auger bit for storage and
transportation. Independent method claim 26 contains similar
limitations. Although Clements’ elongated cylindrical auger
body 18 constitutes a hollow material-retention bit, the prior
art relied upon by the examiner does not teach and would not
have suggested the storage and transportation nesting
relationship between the charge containers and the bit
required by the claims. As explained above, the prior art
lacks any suggestion of adding explosive charges to the
Clements carrying pack. Furthermore, the examiner’s finding
(see page 5 in the answer) that plural charge containers would
inherently fit or nest within Clements’ auger bit for storage
and transportation purposes is unduly speculative and has no
factual support in the applied prior art.
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007