Appeal No. 2005-1835 Page 7
Application No. 10/106,538
be grouted in and that such concrete must be cured for at least three days prior to the
pile test being performed. Whereas, in the present application, the new anchor that
replaces the concrete grouted anchor can be used immediately, and only 1 to 2 holes
need to be drilled to a maximum depth of 15 feet. The appellant further points out that
the anchors of the claimed invention are retrievable and can be used over and over,
whereas, on the other hand, the concrete grouted anchors of the AAPA are left in place
and burned off at ground level.
The arguments set forth in the brief do not convince us that claim 1 is novel. In
that regard, we note that none of the argued limitations (e.g., a small hole drilled for
each anchor; each anchor having expanding feet to obtain proper resistance to obtain
the uplift required to perform the pile test; anchors that are retractable and reusable) is
set forth in claim 1. It is well-settled that limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059
(Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
The appellant argues in the reply brief (p. 2) that claim 1 is not anticipated by the
AAPA because the claimed two reaction anchor assemblies are nowhere to be found in
the AAPA.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007