Appeal No. 2005-1835 Page 8
Application No. 10/106,538
This argument set forth in the reply brief does not convince us that claim 1 is novel.
In that regard, as set forth above, it is our determination that the claimed two reaction
anchor assemblies are readable on the AAPA's two anchor piles 7 with connecting rods 8.
As such, the claimed two reaction anchor assemblies are found in the AAPA. The
appellant has offered no explanation as to why the claimed two reaction anchor
assemblies are not readable on the AAPA's two anchor piles 7 with connecting rods 8.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 2, 4, 14, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is also affirmed since the appellant has not argued separately the patentability
of any particular claim apart from the others, thus allowing claims 2, 4, 14, 15 and 17 to
fall with claim 1 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)).
The obviousness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5 to 13, 16, 18, 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007