Appeal 2007-2596
Application 10/370,634
6. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF HUNTER AND LÜTHI
Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R.§ 41.50(b), we enter the following
new ground of rejection: claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Hunter and Lüthi.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he post-tensioning system according to claim 2,
further comprising a cover member disposed over each anchor member.”
Claims 4-6 limit claim 3’s anchor member to a flexible rubber boot, a
poured concrete cap, and a steel cap, respectively.
As discussed above, Hunter renders the post-tensioning system of
claim 2 obvious. Hunter does not disclose a cap over the anchoring
assembly, as recited in claim 3.
However, Lüthi discloses a “stressing anchorage with which optimal
corrosion protection is achieved” (Lüthi, col. 3, ll. 11-13). Lüthi discloses
that the corrosion-protecting device includes a “cap 24 of metal or preferably
of plastic” that covers the anchorage assembly (id. at col. 6, ll. 17-18; see
also Figure 1).
A person of ordinary skill, recognizing from Lüthi that an isolating
cover over a post-tensioning anchorage assembly would protect the
assembly from corrosion, would have recognized the desirability of covering
Hunter’s post-tensioning anchorage assembly in the same manner.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill, recognizing from Lüthi the importance of
isolating the anchoring assembly from outside corrosive forces, would have
considered it desirable to use any material that would accomplish that
isolation, including the rubber of claim 4, the concrete of claim 5, and the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013