Appeal 2007-0522
Application 10/723,817
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 18, 20, and 25 over Rasso, affirm the anticipation
rejection of claims 18, 19, and 25 over O'Fearna, affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 20 over O'Fearna, and reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 through 17 and 24 over Sadinsky in view of O'Fearna. In addition,
we enter new grounds of rejection of claims 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) over the admitted prior art on pages 1-2 of the Specification (APA),
of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over APA, and of claims 1 through 17
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sadinsky in view of APA.
OPINION
Appellant first contends (Br. 4) that the chiseled point at the end of
Rasso's pole fails to satisfy the claim limitation of a pin "adapted to be
inserted into a drilled socket in a pool deck." Specifically, Appellant
contends (Br. 4) that the chiseled point would not fit properly in a circular
socket and (Br. 5) that the widening at the point of the pole "would leave a
large gap between the walls of the socket and the vast majority of the pole"
making the pole unstable, and, thus, unsafe. Consequently, the chiseled
point is not adapted to be inserted into a pool deck drilled socket. We agree.
Thus, since Rasso fails to satisfy each and every limitation of claim 18 and
the claims which depend therefrom, Rasso cannot anticipate claims 18, 20,
and 25.
Appellant next contends (Br. 6) that O'Fearna's stake telescoped
within a hollow pole is neither a pin nor adapted to be inserted into a drilled
socket in a pool deck. In particular, Appellant contends (Br. 6) that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013