Appeal 2007-2596
Application 10/370,634
Appellant argues that Klein’s teachings are not applicable to Hunter’s
post-tensioning methods because Klein uses the wire strands to absorb the
impact of automobile collisions, not to compress concrete structures (Br.
16). Appellant’s argument raises serious questions as to whether the
Examiner’s combination of Hunter and Klein is adequate to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. However, because we believe that the
Examiner has not relied on all of Hunter’s pertinent disclosures, we vacate
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 15-20, 22, and 23 over Hunter and
Klein, and enter a new ground of rejection set forth below.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3-6 ultimately rely
on the same combination of Hunter with Klein (see Answer 3). We also
vacate those rejections in view of the new ground of rejection set forth
below.
5. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 1, 2, 7, AND 13-23
Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter the following
new ground of rejection: claims 1, 2, 7, and 13-23 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hunter.
Hunter discloses a post-tensioning system for concrete structures that
has “a tendon and anchor assembly [with] a wire head on each wire of the
tendon in a particular configuration and with a specific controlled
relationship with the anchor seat such that the entire force of the wire head
against the seat is in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
wire” (Hunter, col. 3, ll. 54-58). Figure 1 shows an example of Hunter’s
post-tensioning assembly, in which “[t]he tendon is formed of a plurality of
wires 14 extended through an anchor member 10 . . . . The tendon extends
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013