Ex Parte LaCrosse

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2014

11109652 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/109,652 04/20/2005 Wills LaCrosse LAC-001 1756
21884 7590 02/21/2014
WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC
2000 DUKE STREET, SUITE 100
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
FIGUEROA, LUZ ADRIANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3633
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2014 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLS LACROSSE
____________

Appeal 2011-012096
Application 11/109,652
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012096
Application 11/109,652

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Wills LaCrosse (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 7-10. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A ground anchor system shaped and dimensioned for
secure attachment within a support surface, comprising:
an anchor including:
an anchor body extending along a longitudinal axis
and including a first end and a second end;
a coupling member associated with the first end of
the anchor body, wherein the coupling member is a recess
formed in the first end of the anchor body, and the recess is
threaded for attachment to a similarly threaded object requiring
anchoring; and
a fastening assembly depending from the second
end of the anchor body, the fastening assembly being composed
of at least three downwardly extending facets, wherein each
facet includes a first end and a second end, the first end of each
facet being secured to the second end of the anchor body and
the second end extending away from the anchor body;
the second end of each facet includes a tip end
having a facing surface cut at an obliquely oriented angle
relative to the longitudinal axis of the anchor body such that
upon installation into the support surface the second end of
each of the plurality of facets is forced outwardly from the
longitudinal axis as a result of the outward force generated by
the interaction of the tip end with the support surface; and
wherein the anchor body and the anchor facets
occupy approximately the same diametric profile.
Br., Claims App’x.
Appeal 2011-012096
Application 11/109,652

3
Reference
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art reference:
Hugron US 5,010,698 Apr. 30, 1991
Rejection
Appellant seeks review of the following rejection:
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hugron.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
OPINION
The Examiner concluded that Hugron would have rendered the
subject matter of claims 1-3 and 7-10 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention. Ans. 3-6. The Examiner found that Hugron
discloses the elements of the claims except for (a) “the anchor body and
anchor facets occupy[ing] approximately the same diametric profile” and
(b) “the fastening assembly being composed of at least three facets.”
Id. at 4. The Examiner concluded:
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
modify the fastening assembly of Hugron to have the anchor
body and the anchor facets occupy approximately the same
diametric profile or to include three facets since such a
modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts
or a change in the diameter of each facet and would provide a
stronger anchoring member.
Id. at 4-5. The Examiner further indicated that “it is well known in the art to

Appeal 2011-012096
Application 11/109,652

4
have an anchor body with more than two facets as taught by Deike.”1
Id. at 5.
Appellant raises several arguments in response to the Examiner’s
rejection, including that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
prompted to modify Hugron’s device as proposed by the Examiner.
Br. 9-13. In particular, Appellant asserts that were Hugron’s device
modified to include three facets occupying approximately the same
diametric profile as the anchor body, Hugron’s device would not operate.
Id. at 11-12. Additionally, Appellant contends that employing three facets
rather than two is not a mere design choice as the number of facets serves a
very specific purpose in the functioning of Appellant’s device, which
operates differently than Hugron’s device.
The Examiner proffers three different rationales for combining the
references: (1) design choice, (2) mere duplication of parts, and
(3) providing a stronger anchoring member, although which rationale is
relied upon for which missing element is not clear. Accordingly, we address
each.
First, with respect to design choice, we agree with Appellant that the
diametric profile limitation and the number of facets limitation are not
elements solely dictated by one’s design preference. Rather, as explained by
Appellant, each serves a specific purpose in the functioning of the respective
devices. See Br. 10-13.

1 The Examiner pointed to U.S. Patent No. 3,526,069 (Deike) as disclosing
that it is well known in the art to have an anchor body with more than two
facets (Ans. 4-5, 8-9), but the rejection before us is based solely on Hugron.
Thus, we do not consider Deike.
Appeal 2011-012096
Application 11/109,652

5
Second, the Examiner’s modifications involve altering two variables
that depend upon one another. For example, modifying Hugron’s device
from two facets to at least three facets would impact the aggregate diametric
profile of the facets unless each facet’s individual profile is also reduced.
Thus, modifying Hugron to achieve one of the missing elements impacts
whether and how one would have also modified Hugron to attain the second
missing element. The Examiner, however, has not explained why one of
ordinary skill in the art in making one of the proposed modifications would
also make whatever additional modifications were necessary to implement
the second proposed modification of the device. In other words, the
Examiner’s analysis starts with Hugron and concludes that each individual
modification would have been obvious, but does not address why or how the
second modification would have been obvious when starting with Hugron as
first modified. Thus, the Examiner appears to consider the claimed
invention in a piece-meal fashion, rather than considering the claimed
invention as a whole.
Finally, the Examiner’s rationale that changing the diametric profile
would lead to a stronger anchoring member appears improperly derived
from Appellant’s Specification. See Spec. 11 (describing, as a benefit to
having approximately the same diametric profile, very little play between the
exterior walls of the facets/anchor body and the interior wall of the
predrilled hole and that this adds to “the stability of the present ground
anchor”).

Appeal 2011-012096
Application 11/109,652

6
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 7-10.

REVERSED

Llw/rvb