Appeal 2007-2121
Application 10/705,083
claimed, with Smith’s driver “used to turn over a lip (32 in Figure 4) on the
top of the tube” and “called a ‘flattening wall member 25’” by Smith (Br.
14; see also 9).
Appellant contends the driver for a tube of Roger “works on the inside
of the tube diameter, not on the top of the tube” as claimed, as the
hydraulically driven tool exerts a driving force “upon an internal ‘hammer
bearing surface’” 4 of the tube as seen in Fig. 3, and not a hand operated
device as claimed (Br. 15 and 15-16; see also 10). Appellant contends
Smith drives a stake, which is not a marker stake, through a timber into the
ground; discloses stake and driver are formed of metal; does not disclose the
pointed end of the driver extends from the bottom end opening; and does not
initially hold the stake body on the driver (id. 12). Appellant contends Gipp
discloses solid bottom stake member 12 in Figure 1 that does not have a
hollow interior bore for receiving a driver tool as claimed, and thus does not
provide teachings of a driver tool as claimed (Br. 12; see also 10).
With respect to claim 9, Appellant contends Anglea does not teach the
claimed stake and driver combination with respect to Smith as Angela’s end
cap is not installed into a tubular stake driven into terrain with a driver as
claimed, and is permanently fitted into bore 24 while, as claimed, the
filament bundle could be removed for reuse (Br. 16-17; see also 10). With
respect to claim 14, Appellant contends the applied references do not teach a
tubular stake and a driver therefor as claimed (id. 17-18).
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in concluding it would
have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the teachings of Smith, Selby, Clarke, Gipp, and Roger and further with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013