Appeal No. 2000-1655 Page 9
Application No. 08/836,892
and 4-6) which is clearly not at a depth which is deeper than
the maximum freezing depth of the ground. The examiner's
further determination (answer, p. 4) that the recitation of "a
maximum freezing depth" sets forth no method steps/structure
that patentably defines over the teachings of Long is untrue
for the following reasons. First, the structure of claim 36
requires a plate-like reaction member positioned in the ground
at a depth which is deeper than a maximum freezing depth of
the ground which is a structural limitation not suggested or
taught by Long. Second, the method of claim 33 requires
excavating a pile hole in the soil to a depth below the
maximum freezing depth and driving a pile and reaction member
into the pile hole so that the reaction member is positioned
at the bottom of the excavated pile hole below the maximum
freezing depth which are method limitations not suggested or
taught by Long.
In addition, while the examiner (answer, pp. 5-6) may be
correct that Long's permanently frozen region 12 and ring 26
are the full functional equivalents of the appellants'
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007