Appeal 2007-2596
Application 10/370,634
Figure 2 of Klein shows a side view of such a structure. Wire 17
extends from the anchor 19 in a concrete member 14 at the building’s top
story, through a vertical passage 26 in a concrete member 12 in an
intermediate story, to an anchor 21 in a concrete member 10 at the bottom
story. As is evident from Figure 2, the anchors 19 and 21 are not at the ends
of the same concrete member 12 that contains the void, but are attached to
different members.
Thus, Klein does not disclose the claimed elements in the manner
arranged in claim 13. We therefore agree with Appellant that Klein does not
anticipate claim 13, and reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of that
claim, and its dependent claims 14 and 21.
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- APPEALED REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, 15-20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Hunter and Klein (Answer 3). Claims 3-6 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hunter and Klein, and further in view
of Lüthi (Answer 11).
The Examiner cites Hunter as disclosing “a post-tensioned concrete
structure that is basically the same as that recited in claims 1, 2, 7, 15-20, 22,
and 23 except that the structure lacks an unfilled void and stainless steel
strands” (Final Rejection 3). The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to modify Hunter’s concrete structure to have those features “in
view of the suggestion in Klein that the concrete structure tensioned via
stainless steel strands may absorb the impact of an automobile traveling 40
M.P.H. and the unfilled void tubular structure allow for the damaged strands
to be removed and replaced” (id. at 4).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013