Appeal No. 2003-1982 Page 5
Application No. 09/620,830
plant to a depth sufficient enough to support it, and does not establish a space in a
cavity to one side of the post. Nor does Ferguson disclose or teach introducing any
material into a cavity, much less a water expansible, organic fiber, pellet material to
produce a fill, and it follows that Ferguson thus does not add water to cause expansion
and consolidation of the fill into a water pervious cake capable of supporting the rod.
Kosinski discloses a soil substitute for promoting plant growth which comprises
balls of natural or synthetic organic polymer fibers. There is no teaching in Kosinski of
supporting a post or the like in this soil substitute. There also is no indication that upon
application of water this soil substitute expands and consolidates into a water pervious
cake that is capable of firmly holding the end of a post.
We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in either reference, or in
the “official notice” taken by the examiner, which would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the Ferguson method in such a manner as to render the method
disclosed in claim 1 obvious. Moreover, even if Ferguson were modified by replacing
the soil with Kosinski’s soil substitute, the result would not give rise to the method
recited in the appellants’ claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The rejection is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007