Appeal No. 1997-1188 Page 2
Application No. 08/035,969
The appellant's invention relates to a seismic
exploration system (claims 17 to 29) and a method of seismic
exploration (claims 30 to 38). A copy of the claims under
appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Miller 3,863,200 Jan. 28, 1975
Read et al. (Read) 4,885,724 Dec. 5, 1989
McNatt EP 0226366 June 24, 1987
Claims 17 to 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Read or McNatt when taken with Miller.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed August 27, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 19,
filed May 7, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 28, filed
February 8, 2001) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007