Appeal No. 1998-0801
Application No. 08/557,979
In this regard, it appears that the examiner has lost
sight of the need for the applied references to actually
disclose, teach or suggest the recited structural features of
appellants' claimed subject matter and for the references to
provide some motivation for making the combination thereof so
as to result in the claimed subject matter in order to support
a rejection based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In
this case, we agree with appellants that the references to
Bernhardt and Breslin, whether considered alone or in
combination, fail to teach or suggest a "tubing means" as
claimed, i.e., one having a coiled portion which serves as a
spring and, when suspended in a well, "does not extend to said
ground water," and further includes an extension that
continues below said coiled portion and terminates in said
ground water. Moreover, the applied references also do not
teach or suggest a "float means" as claimed which is "adapted
to be slidingly attached to said tubing means below said
coiled portion," or an aeration means along with a weight
means that is "fixedly attached to the lower end of said
tubing means below said aeration means," as set forth in
appellants' claim 11 on appeal. The references used by the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007