Appeal 2007-0522
Application 10/723,817
insert, and the pole with a screw, whereas claim 25 recites attaching the pin
to the insert with an adhesive. As adhesive and screws are well recognized
equivalent ways of fastening, it would have been obvious to substitute
adhesive for the screws of the admitted prior art. Therefore, claim 25 would
have been obvious over APA.
Claims 1 through 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Sadinsky in view of APA. Sadinsky recites (claims 6, 10, and 15) all of the
limitations of claims 1 through 5, 7, and 8, 10 through 12, and 14 through
16, respectively, except for the structure of the poles including a plastic
insert within each pole and a metal pin attached to each insert and protruding
from the insert. Appellant discloses (Specification 1:28-35) that poles were
developed with smaller diameter steel pins mounted at the lower end of the
poles such that the pins could be placed in holes in a pool deck that were
smaller than the holes needed for previous poles. Appellant further discloses
(Specification 2:1-7) that a pin was mounted by inserting it in one end of a
plastic pipe which was in turn inserted in the end of the pole, and a screw
held the three pieces together. It would have been obvious to replace the
poles of Sadinsky with the poles of the admitted prior art to be able to use
smaller holes in the pool deck.
We note that Appellant states (Specification 1:33-35) that the poles
with protruding pins were not previously used for gates because of a need
for a more stable rigid structure near the gate. However, since Sadinsky
already makes the structure near the gate more rigid and stable by using
multiple poles with cross structures adjacent each side of the gate to relieve
the tension in the fence (col. 2, ll. 3-4), the need for more stable individual
poles is reduced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the admitted
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013