Appeal 2007-0522
Application 10/723,817
a pin that is fixedly attached to the insert, the pin having a diameter
smaller than that on the pole and a portion that protrudes from the lower end
of the fence pole;
wherein the pin is adapted to be inserted into a drilled socket in a pool
deck.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Rasso US 2,384,338 Sep. 04, 1945
O'Fearna US 4,576,364 Mar. 18, 1986
Sadinsky US 5,664,769 Sep. 09, 1997
Claims 18, 20, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Rasso.
Claims 18, 19, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by O'Fearna.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over O'Fearna.
Claims 1 through 17 and 241 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sadinsky in view of O'Fearna.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed August 29, 2006) and to
Appellant's Brief (filed October 27, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed October 16,
2006) for the respective arguments.
1 Although the Examiner omits claim 24 in the statement of the rejection
(Answer 5), the Examiner discusses claim 24 in the body of the rejection.
Further, Appellant (Br. 10) argues claim 24 as if rejected. Accordingly, we
will treat claim 24 as rejected.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013