Appeal No. 2005-2694
Application No. 10/208,631
cylindrical polyethylene tubes having a ½ (0.5) inch mesh size, a
diameter of about 12 inches and a length of either 30 or 60 inches
(see column 2, lines 24-34).
In proposing to combine Albright and Grabhorn to reject claims
1, 113 and 114, the examiner submits that
[t]o have formed the Albright tubular mesh with
openings of about ½ inch or less than ½ inch, thus
allowing appropriate flow of liquid through the tubular
mesh while holding the filling material therewithin,
would have constituted an obvious expedient to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made as taught by Grabhorn '458. Forming the resulting
tubular mesh in lengths of a magnitude to define a ratio
of length to major diameter equal to 40, (as for example
40 feet or more), thus allowing expansive coverage with a
single unit as well as forming the major diameter of more
than 12 inches to allow for a height coverage of
approximately 13-15 inches, would have constituted a
further obvious expedient to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made [answer,
page 4].
The appellant does not dispute the examiner’s conclusion that
Grabhorn would have suggested forming the Albright mesh material
with a nominal opening size of less than 0.5 inches. The appellant
does contend, however, that the rejection is unsound because the
combined teachings of Albright and Grabhorn would not have
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007