Appeal No. 2005-1069
Application No. 10/061,137
agree with the examiner that appellant's argument fails to
address the thrust of the examiner's rejection. The examiner's
rejection is based on the modification of Deaton such that it "is
surrounded with a structure/area with a realistic look of an
authentic stratigraphical section, as taught by Serge" (page 5 of
Answer, first paragraph). The examiner explains that:
[I]t is not the Serge reference that is being modified
but rather the Deaton reference and the addition of the
features taught by Serge in no way effects [sic,
affects] the functionality of Deaton but rather adds to
the effect of Deaton by providing a more realistic,
educational and interesting device [id.].
The other arguments presented by appellant have been
adequately refuted by the examiner in the Answer.
Also, we find little, if any, meaningful distinction between
the system of Deaton and the system within the scope of claim 1
on appeal. In our view, the figures of Deaton clearly depict a
simulated collection area that simulates a geographic locale
comprising fossils, while the matrix 20 of Deaton comprising the
fossils 16 meets the claimed "bulk collection material"
comprising the items of interest. As acknowledged by appellant,
Deaton discloses removing or extracting the items of interest
from the matrix, and the reference further teaches how the system
allows for the student to "gently scrape the matrix material away
therefrom to avoid damage to the fossil specimens 16" (column 2,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007