Appeal No. 1998-0801
Application No. 08/557,979
Claims 11 and 13 through 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt in view of Breslin.
As indicated on page 3 of the answer, it is the examiner's
opinion that
Bernhardt discloses a well aerator having a float
and a coiled tube leading to the surface, with a
means for providing negative pressure in the
wellhead, substantially as claimed. The instant
claims differ in certain structural features, such
as the weight being below the aeration means, having
the float slidingly attached to the tube, and the
materials of the aerator and the weight. It is well
known to have a weight be at the bottom of a
weighted system, as exemplified by Breslin. It is
submitted that the specific structure and materials
are matters of design consideration, which would
have been obvious for one skilled in the art, and
therefore fail to patentably distinguish over
Bernhardt.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we refer to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed October 24, 1997) and to appellants' substitute brief
(Paper No. 14, filed October 6, 1997) for a full exposition
thereof.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007