Appeal No. 2004-0839 Page 10
Application No. 09/347,695
Berquist further teaches (column 5, lines 31-41) that:
While vibratory frame 18 has been illustrated for relative movement in a
vertical plane, it is to be understood that the vibratory frame and push tube
could, if desired, be mounted on a ball or trunnion mount for relative movement
in any desired direction. Also, implant apparatus 12 could be formed integrally
with a mobile vehicle for movement from one location to another location as
desired. While a pushing member in this specification has been described as a
tube, other structures such as a rod, a bar etc. could equivalently serve as a
pushing member.
The examiner's rejection
In the rejection under appeal (final rejection, pp. 2-3), the examiner determined
that the apparatus for coupling a seismic geophone to soil was anticipated by Berquist
as follows: (1) the claimed portable chassis was met by Berquist's lower frame
members or arms 22; (2) the claimed frame engaged with the chassis was met by
Berquist's vibratory frame 18; (3) the claimed orientation device engaged with the frame
for selectively orienting the frame to vertical was met by Berquist's rubber or
elastomeric pads 20; and (4) the claimed hammer moveable relative to the frame to
contact the soil in a vertical direction for generating a case opening suitable for
subsequent insertion of a geophone, wherein the hammer is retractable from the case
opening generated by the hammer was met by Berquist's push rod 68.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007