Appeal No. 2004-1269 Page 5
Application No. 09/649,157
affixed to an end potion of the tubular member and (2) a smaller
diameter second annular portion that extends outwardly from the
first annular portion.
Thus, even if we could agree with the examiner’s proposed
modification of Sorkin, the examiner has not fairly explained how
that modified system of Sorkin would correspond to the here
claimed anchor system including the specific claimed geometry of
the seal member portions. Nor has the examiner reasonably
explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to further modify the anchor system of Sorkin with or without
the teachings of Wlodkowski to employ a seal member having the
specific structural characteristics set forth in appealed claims
39 and 40. We note for example that Sorkin (column 6, line 53
through column 7, line 9 and drawing figures 9 and 10) discloses
alternative embodiments wherein a trumpet (tube) portion of the
post-tension anchor system is snap fitted within the corrosion
protection tube. However, in those embodiments wherein Sorkin
employs a protrusion (112) on the exterior of the trumpet (tube)
portion, the corrosion protection tube has not been shown to have
the here claimed seal member geometry based on the examiner’s
proposed modification in a manner so as to arrive at the here
claimed subject matter. In this regard, we note that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007