Appeal No. 1999-2446 Page 25
Application No. 08/705,592
Claim 17
It is our opinion that the subject matter of method claim
17 is inherently met by Scott for the reasons set forth above
with respect to claim 6. In addition, it is our determination
that the claimed step of placing the container on a surface in
the region of run-off to slow the flow of water is met by
Scott's disclosure that his mats are for use in the revetment
of river banks and the like. Thus, the appellant's argument
(brief, p. 13) that "Scott is unclear about how his woven mat
is to be used" is inaccurate. Since anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness, we sustain the examiner's rejection of
appealed claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scott.
Claims 19 and 20
Claim 19 recites the step of providing "hammer milled
wood fragments" within the container. As with claim 12 above,
the examiner has not provided any evidence as to why it would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007