Appeal 2007-2121
Application 10/705,083
Appellant requests review of the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (Br. 7): claims 1, 6, and 14 as being unpatentable over Smith in
view of Selby, Clarke, Gipp, and Roger (Answer 3-6); and claims 3 through
5, 9, and 15 through 17 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Selby,
Clarke, Gipp and Roger as applied to claims 1, 6 and 14, further in view of
Angela (id. 6-7).1
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 14 as representative claims
in the first ground of rejection and independent claim 9 as representative of
the claims in the second ground of rejection (Br. in entirety). Thus, we
decide this appeal based on claims 1, 9, and 14.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
With respect to claims 1 and 14, the Examiner finds Smith discloses
tubular stake 14 and pointed shaft driver 20, wherein the hollow stake body
has top and bottom end openings and receives shaft driver 20 which is used
to drive the stake into terrain (Answer 3-4, citing Smith Figs. 1-3). The
Examiner finds Smith’s tubular stake does not have a preformed frusto-
conical shaped reinforced top planar exposed end surface for receiving the
shaft driver; Selby discloses a drive spike 10 reinforced with a widened top
end surface 12 to drive the spike into place; and Clarke discloses a
compression screw spike 10 with a preformed frusto-conical wall region 8
for greater strength against lateral action (id. 4-5, citing Selby col. 3,
ll. 60-61, and Fig. 1; and Clarke page 2, left col., ll. 1-2, and Fig. 1). The
1 The Answer includes a ground of rejection of claim 12 (Answer 7-8) and
the Brief requests review of this ground (Br. 7). However, claim 12 was
canceled in the Amendment filed June 1, 2005.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013