Appeal No. 1999-1529 Page 11
Application No. 08/366,985
The appellant argues (brief, p. 24) that the examiner's
implicit finding that the only difference between Cranko and
claim 38 was the tensioning step is in error. Specifically,
the appellant contends that Cranko does not teach or suggest a
resin cartridge. Additionally, the appellant argues that
Cranko does not teach or suggest the recited mixing step.
We do not agree with the appellant that Cranko does not
teach or suggest a resin cartridge as set forth in claim 38.
In that regard, the two compartment capsule shown in Figures 3
and 4 is clearly disclosed on pages 9-10 as containing a
resin. Thus, it is our opinion that the claimed "resin
cartridge" is readable on Cranko's two compartment capsule.
We agree with the appellant, however, that Cranko does
not teach or suggest the claimed mixing step. In that regard,
Cranko does not teach or suggest that the resin in Cranko's
two compartment capsule is mixed with a cable to form an
anchor with the rock. Instead, in the embodiment of Figures 3
and 4, Cranko teaches that the resin in Cranko's two
compartment capsule is mixed with a bolt B to form an anchor,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007