Appeal No. 2005-1835 Page 10
Application No. 10/106,538
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 13-14; reply brief, p. 2) that (1) Sero is directed
to foundations and nowhere teaches or suggests pile testing; and (2) there is no
motivation to combine Sero with the AAPA.
We find the appellant's argument unpersuasive since in applying the above-noted
test for obviousness we conclude that it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the
AAPA by replacing the AAPA's two anchor piles 7 with an anchor device as suggested
and taught by Sero. The motivation for this modification of AAPA comes from the
teachings of Sero. Sero teaches that the setting of the anchor device requires augering
a hole in the media followed by lowering of the device into the hole so that the device
rests at the bottom of the hole. Once the device is installed, the hydraulically actuated
motive means of his invention forces plates to swing outwardly in an arc to compact and
consolidate the surrounding media. Sero teaches (column 2, lines 24-29) that "[t]he
preferred anchor or foundation device of this invention minimizes costs, eliminates the
need of in-ground concrete, eliminates the need for costly deep drilling and media
analysis, and estimates approximating the holding strength by providing an actual
measurement of the structure's strength." In our view, this teaching of Sero provides
ample motivation to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the AAPA
by replacing the AAPA's two anchor piles 7 with an anchor device as taught by Sero.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007