Appeal No. 2002-2250
Application No. 09/519,823
bottom of the concrete mat are piles which correspond to the
tension/compression components recited in independent claims 1
and 8, as well as in independent claims 14, 18 and 20. The
examiner concedes (see pages 4 and 8 in the answer), however,
that these alleged piles do not respond to the bearing surface
limitations in claims 1 and 8, the corresponding anchoring means
limitations in claims 14 and 18 and spin fin limitation in claim
20, and the deep extension and related bearing, tension,
compression, and/or resistance limitations in claims 1, 8, 14, 18
and 20. To cure these admitted shortcomings in Lejeck, the
examiner turns to Thornley.
Thornley discloses a method and apparatus for adjusting the
vertical position of massive structures, such as large buildings,
to accommodate soil settlement. Sidewalks, sewer systems, water
systems, and small buildings supported on or in settling soil
move downwardly therewith, but larger buildings and more massive
structures supported on piles extending deeply to firmer soil
strata do not, and thus eventually become elevated relative to
the surface of the settling soil (see Thornley at column 1, lines
21 through 46). To overcome this problem, Thornley proposes a
building having a foundation rigidly mounted on piles and a
superstructure which is capable of being lowered relative to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007