Appeal No. 2002-2090
Application 08/430,311
appellant has again focused on the recitation of “plain concrete”
as a distinguishing feature relative to Givens. We find this
argument no more persuasive here than we did with regard to the
other claims on appeal, and also point out that unlike the other
claims on appeal claims 70 and 72 even more broadly recite the
concrete used in the load bearing panel structure as being
“substantially plain concrete” (emphasis added).
As for appellant’s further argument that claim 70
distinguishes over Givens because it requires placing unset
concrete to form the upper and lower halves of appellant’s panel
structure “at the same time” (brief, page 15 and reply brief,
page 9) and thus in a single step, we must agree with the
examiner (answer, page 15) that no such requirement is manifested
in claim 70. Claim 70 is drafted in an open-ended “comprising”
format and thus is not limited to only the steps set forth
therein. Moreover, there is nothing in the “placing unset
concrete” step of claim 70 which mandates a single pour or
placement of concrete to form both the upper and lower halves of
the panel structure “at the same time.” Like the examiner, we
are of the view that the disclosure at column 14, line 42 through
column 15, line 3 of Givens is fully responsive to the process of
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007