Appeal No. 2005-1835 Page 6
Application No. 10/106,538
b. applying an opposite reaction force on an I-beam (the AAPA applies an opposite
reaction force on the I-beam 6);
c. providing two reaction anchor assemblies on opposite sides of said pile (the AAPA
provides two anchor piles 7 with connecting rods 8 on opposite sides of the pile 1); and
d. bracing said I-beam by said two reaction anchor assemblies to hold said I-beam
stationary in counter-action against said opposite reaction force on said I-beam (the
AAPA braces the I-beam 6 by the two anchor piles 7 with connecting rods 8, plates 9
and nuts 10 to hold the I-beam 6 stationary in counter-action against the opposite
reaction force on the I-beam 6).
The appellant argues in the brief (pp. 11-12) that the invention as claimed is not
anticipated by the AAPA because of the differences between the claims and the AAPA
which differences are important in using an anchoring system that requires only a small
hole to be drilled for an anchor that has expanding feet to obtain proper resistance to
obtain the uplift required to perform the pile test. Using the claimed apparatus and
method, the appellant asserts that the cost is reduced by 50% because the main factor
in pile testing is the type of anchor used. The appellant points out that the pile test
system of the claimed invention uses anchors that are retractable and reusable,
whereas, on the other hand, the existing pile test of the AAPA uses rock anchors that
require 6 to 12 holes drilled to a depth of 50 feet to 100 feet so that concrete then can
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007