Appeal 2007-0814
Application 10/243,417
Claim 8, which depends from claim 7, further requires that the cables is
fastened between the mast and a concrete anchor run at an acute angle relative to
the mast, and that the concrete anchor is shorter than the masts. We disagree with
the Examiner’s findings that the cables are fastened to the masts and run at acute
angle with respect to the masts. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude:
1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, and 14-16 under
35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Schultz.
2) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Crisp.
3) The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Crisp.
4) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schultz.
5) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schultz and Crisp.
6) The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Crisp.
7) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crisp.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013