Appeal No. 2005-0901 Application No. 10/182,886 has a pitch or wavelength at a portion of the member which is greater than the pitch or wavelength at the remainder of the member. The portions of the member having a different pitch or wavelength create a spring effect at the portion having the greater pitch or wavelength. According to appellant, the cylindrical cavity of the helical member "enables the tool to be wound into soil and pulled directly out of the soil so a plug of soil is located within the cavity" (page 2 of principal brief, second paragraph). Appellant also relates that "when used to aerate soil around a small seedling or the like, the tool can be wound into the soil so that it extends about the root structure of the seedling and does not damage the seedling as the tool is wound into the soil" (id.). Appealed claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Reinhardt. Claims 2, 3, 12, 15 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reinhardt in view of Bracewell. We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we find that the examiner's rejections are without the requisite factual support. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections. -3-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007