Appeal No. 2002-2272
Application 09/375,712
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9 through 12
Independent claim 9 recites a shoulder preparing apparatus
comprising, inter alia, a vehicle, a material applicator
supported adjacent the rear end of the vehicle and a compacting
apparatus supported adjacent the front end of the vehicle. The
claim further defines the compacting apparatus as including a
guide member, a ram engaging the guide member, a ram linear
actuator supported by the guide member and operably connected to
the ram, a pair of laterally spaced arms supported for movement
relative to the ram, a roller rotatably supported intermediate
the pair of arms, and at least one arm linear actuator operably
connecting the ram and at least one of the pair of arms.
Bergman, the primary reference in the rejection of claim 9,
discloses a road repair arrangement comprising a dump-truck 20, a
material applicator 25 on the truck about midway along its
length, and a compacting apparatus in the form of one of the
truck’s rear wheels 34. The examiner (see pages 8 through 10 in
the answer) finds that the material applicator 25 is supported
adjacent the rear end of the vehicle as required by claim 9, but
concedes that the rear compacting wheel 34 lacks response to the
compacting apparatus limitations in the claim. To overcome this
admitted deficiency, the examiner turns to Hollon.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007