Appeal No. 2000-1667 Page 5
Application No. 09/071,305
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 18
through 20, 25 through 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Constantin in view of Cicin-
Sain and Scheunemann. The examiner finds that:
Constantin . . . teaches a method for
resurfacing a gravel road comprising the
steps of ripping the surface of the gravel
road to break up fine and coarse material
near the surface of the gravel road (column
4, lines 46-57), moving the gravel
laterally outwardly with the middle buster
48 and laterally inwardly with the side
delivery blades 50, and grading the
material with the floating striker blade
52. [Final Rejection at pages 2-3].
(emphasis added)
The examiner relies on Cicin-Sain and Scheunemann for
disclosing a scarifer 24 in Cicin-Sain and an agitator in
Scheunemann for loosening metalling or gravel so that it can
be easily manipulated by a ballast renewal machine. The
examiner concludes that:
It would have been obvious, in view of
these teachings of Cicin-Sain . . . and
Scheunemann . . . to provide Constantin . .
. with a ripper bar in front of the middle
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007