Appeal No. 1998-2096
Application No. 08/586,966
5 through 19 and 36 have been allowed. Claims 29 and 30, the
only other claims remaining in the application, are objected
to as being dependent upon a rejected claim, but would be
allowable
if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations
of the base claim and any intervening claims.
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a ground
anchor which is intended to be driven into the ground to
anchor guy rods, cables or the like. See specification, p. 1.
A copy of the appealed claims is reproduced in an appendix to
the brief.2
1(...continued)
to the final rejection. In an Advisory Action mailed February 25, 1997 (Paper
No. 7), the examiner approved entry of the amendment, indicated that the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 26 through 28 based on Chandler and Habib
made in the final rejection had been overcome and that claims 26 through 28
were objected to. Nevertheless, the answer indicates at pages 2, 3 and 7 that
claims 26 through 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Chandler
and Habib. No objection to the examiner’s apparent change in position with
respect to claims 26 through 28 was raised by the appellants in the Reply
Brief. Thus, we consider the rejection of claims 26 through 28 to be before
us for our review.
2The following errors are worthy of correction upon return of the
application to the jurisdiction of the examiner: claim 20, line 2, “number”
(continued...)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007