Appeal No. 1998-2096
Application No. 08/586,966
ground anchor disclosed by Chandler, if one determined that a
single lip was insufficient to stabilize the anchor during
installation. See Answer, p. 6. The examiner also contends
that the exact location and dimensions of the second lip would
have been “an obvious design consideration.” Id. As to the
recitation in claim 23 of a leg portion having longitudinally
offset side edges, the examiner maintains (id.) that
[u]se of first and second leading edges on
Chandler’s leg would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, to increase the anchor’s
ability to penetrate the earth with as little
resistance as possible. If one determines that a
single leading edge or “cutting surface” is
insufficient to penetrate soils of various
densities, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to add additional cutting
surfaces on the leading edge of the anchor to
facilitate insertion of the device into the ground.
The exact orientation of these cutting surfaces
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art, based upon knowledge of various soils and
what types of cutting surfaces work best in those
soils.
With respect to claims 20 and 23, the appellants argue
(Main Brief, pp. 13 and 14 and Reply Brief, pp. 3 and 4) that
the examiner has failed to cite any prior art that recognizes
or teaches the advantages of providing either a second curved
lip portion extending from the body portion or multiple
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007