Appeal No. 1997-1188 Page 8
Application No. 08/035,969
teachings of Miller arrives at the claimed invention. In that
regard, we note that the examiner never determined that the
actual differences between the claimed subject matter and Read
or McNatt would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In the
rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner has not
determined that the applied prior art teaches or suggests a
combining element being coupled to an output of each of a
plurality of the controlled elements coupled to one of the
plurality of sets of seismic sensors for combining the seismic
signals to produce at least one seismic trace as set forth in
claim 17 or the combining of each selected group of received
seismic signals to produce each seismic trace as recited in
claim 30.
Thus, in the rejection before us in this appeal, the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007