Appeal No. 2004-0618
Application No. 10/021,790
Furthermore, there is nothing in the “reflective means”
limitation, or anywhere else in claim 6, which excludes or is
otherwise inconsistent with Kirschke’s light means, TV camera, or
the electrical connections attendant thereto.
In light of the foregoing, the appellants’ position that the
examiner’s rejections are unsound because Kirschke does not
teach, and would not have suggested, a pipeline inspection device
responsive to the “reflective means” limitation in claim 6 is not
persuasive. We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 6, 8 and 9 as being anticipated by
Kirschke and the alternative 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 6, 8 and 9 as being obvious over Kirschke.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 6, 8 and 9 is
affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007