Appeal No. 1999-1825
Application 08/799,258
claims 19, 24 and 26 is not well founded. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 19, 24 and 26, or of claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 20 through
23, 25, 27 and 28 which depend therefrom, as being
unpatentable over Clements in view of Walker and the admitted
prior art.1
Finally, the following rejection is entered pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 26 through 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter the appellants regard as
the invention.
Clause (b) in method claim 26 sets forth the step of
“preparing detonatable explosive charges from individually
non-explosive constituents contained in charge containers
which nest within the hollow material-retention auger bit for
storage and transportation in placing the prepared detonatable
explosive charges in said containers as prepared explosive
1Upon return of the application to the technology center, the examiner should
consider whether claims 10 and 24 are duplicate claims deserving of treatment in
accordance with MPEP § 706.03(k).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007