Appeal No. 2004-2279 Page 7
Application No. 10/151,263
Based on our analysis and review of Ammons and claims 5 and 6, it is our
opinion that the differences include the following: (1) a second ground engaging
battered leg having upper and lower ends; said upper ends of said first and second
battered legs being secured to said tower between the upper and lower ends of said
tower; (2) said second battered leg extending downwardly and outwardly from said
tower in a diverging relationship with respect to the first battered leg for anchored
ground engagement; and (3) a plurality of horizontally disposed braces secured to and
extending between said first and second battered legs.
With regard to these differences, the examiner determined (final rejection, p. 3)
that:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to design the tower as taught by Ammons and to
provide the first and second battered legs engaging the ground and the braces
connecting between the legs and the tubular member as taught by Haney et al.
for the purpose of rigidly restraining the tower in place against the external forces
incurred by the tower or the turbine supported by the tower.
It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to design the combined tower and to provide the
first and second battered legs engaging the ground and the braces connecting
between the legs as taught by Gomez De Rosas et al. for the purpose of
providing an additional structural reinforcement to the tower without significantly
increasing the structure weight.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007