Appeal No. 1998-1188 Page 9
Application No. 08/628,556
Since all limitations of independent claim 18 are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art, we will not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 18 and dependent claims 19 through 21.
Rejection (II)
We will also not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 9. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and,
accordingly, includes the limitation of claim 8 found lacking
in Hall and UK ‘967, supra. The additionally cited EP ‘675
reference does nothing to remedy the deficiencies in Hall and
UK ‘967. Therefore, we conclude that the combined teachings
of the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed
invention.
Turning next to the examiner's rejection of claims 13 and
15 through 17, it is the examiner’s position that Hall and UK
‘967 teach or suggest all of the claimed subject matter,
except for a bit at one end of an anchor pole having a
centrally disposed spike and at least one blade forming from
two to four turns around the spike with the spike having a
diameter much smaller than the anchor pole (final rejection,
page 5). The examiner relies on EP ‘675 for a teaching of a
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007