Appeal No. 1998-1188 Page 7
Application No. 08/628,556
simply no teaching or suggestion in the reference that the
step members 4 are to be used as handles. Thus, we are
constrained to agree with the appellant that UK ‘967 is not
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
appellant was concerned, i.e., providing a firm ground anchor
for various types of soil that is light weight, compact and
requires no additional heavy, bulky parts to be carried
(specification, page 3).
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and
8 and dependent claims 2 through 7, 10 and 11.
Independent claim 18 recites a method for anchoring a
pole [17] including the step of hingeably pivoting a
monolithic handle [36] away from an anchor body [16] so that
it extends radially outwardly to provide at least two hand
grips on opposite sides of the anchor body for rotating the
anchor body. We agree with the appellant’s argument that the
combined teachings of the applied prior art fail to disclose
this step. In this regard, we disagree not only with the
examiner’s determination that the elements 4 of UK ‘967 are
handles, but also with the examiner’s determination that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007