Appeal No. 2005-0901
Application No. 10/182,886
has a pitch or wavelength at a portion of the member which is
greater than the pitch or wavelength at the remainder of the
member. The portions of the member having a different pitch or
wavelength create a spring effect at the portion having the
greater pitch or wavelength. According to appellant, the
cylindrical cavity of the helical member "enables the tool to be
wound into soil and pulled directly out of the soil so a plug of
soil is located within the cavity" (page 2 of principal brief,
second paragraph). Appellant also relates that "when used to
aerate soil around a small seedling or the like, the tool can be
wound into the soil so that it extends about the root structure
of the seedling and does not damage the seedling as the tool is
wound into the soil" (id.).
Appealed claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Reinhardt. Claims 2, 3, 12, 15 and 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Reinhardt in view of Bracewell.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we find
that the examiner's rejections are without the requisite factual
support. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007