Appeal 2007-0003
Application 10/217,990
over the prior art apparatus). Appellant has not argued that the materials
which formed the device disclosed by Botzem and Schulz are not suitable
for transmission of electromagnetic energy. Appellant’s arguments (Br. 11)
regarding the location of the device in proximity to a water table are not
persuasive because the location of the device does not establish a structural
difference.
As to claims 2-6 and 11-16, Appellant repeats his arguments
regarding the device being operable from the transmission of
electromagnetic energy. (Br. 11-16). These arguments are not persuasive
for the reasons set forth above.
IV. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Botzem, Schutz, and Vanderklaauw.
The Examiner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have readily recognized that wings, flanges and centerlines are known means
of alignment and support. In support of his position the Examiner cites the
Vanderklaauw reference. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ known means for
alignment and support in the device suggested by Botzem and Schulz
(Answer 8).
Appellant has failed to contest the Examiner’s reasoning for citing the
Vanderklaauw reference. Rather, Appellant repeats his arguments
regarding the device being operable from the transmission of
electromagnetic energy. (Br. 17-18). These arguments are not persuasive
for the reasons set forth above.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013