Appeal 2007-2596
Application 10/370,634
through the concrete slab 24 being post-tensioned within a conduit 21 and
through the bearing plate 22 which is in bearing engagement with the
concrete slab” (id. at col. 3, ll. 62-70).
Hunter’s Figure 1 shows the conduit having a socket structure, as
recited in claim 7, where it meets the bearing plate 22. The anchor member
10 appears to substantially close the end of the conduit’s socket structure, as
recited in claims 1 and 17. Hunter also teaches that post-tensioning uses
“tendons [that] are extended through bearing plates which are positioned
against opposite edges of the slab” (Hunter, col. 1, ll. 59-61). Thus, Hunter
teaches “anchor members disposed at opposite ends” of the structure (claim
1) or “anchored at opposite ends of the member” (claim 13).
Hunter’s conduit meets the limitations in independent claims 1, 13,
and 17 requiring a tubular structure that defines a void. Because Hunter
does not disclose that the conduit has anything in it, other than the tendon,
Hunter also meets the limitation that the void is unfilled.
To form the tendons, Hunter discloses wire made of “normally .8
carbon, .7 manganese, .2 silicon analysis, hot rolled, cold drawn steel” (id. at
col. 4, ll. 13-15). Thus, Hunter differs from the claims in that Hunter does
not use stainless steel.
Recently addressing the issue of obviousness, the United States
Supreme Court reaffirmed the conclusion “that when a patent ‘simply
arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013