Appeal No. 2005-2694
Application No. 10/208,631
suggested a system and method embodying the length to diameter
ratios recited in claims 1, 113 and 114.
Responding to this line of argument, the examiner contends
that
[t]he suggestion or motivation to enlarge the Albright
tubular mesh is with the knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art as one of ordinary skill
in the soils engineering art would wish to establish as
much of a continuous barrier to water runoff as is
possible while also striving to create a barrier which
can hold back as much water level as feasible [answer,
pages 5 and 6].
The examiner also takes a somewhat different approach by (1)
characterizing the ratio difference between the claims and the
applied references as an uncritical, and hence arbitrary, variation
in size and (2) citing case law for the proposition that such size
limitations
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007