Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
Waters illustrates one of [the] shapes typical of
the prior art in Figure 1C, which figure is also
cited by the Examiner. Note that Waters’ Figure 1C
is a modified tetrahedron, at best, but nonetheless
is a “solid concrete member.” The artificial reef
module of applicant’s claim 1 is distinguished over
the tetrahedral shape in Figure 1C of Waters by the
language of claim 1: “said module having a solid
filled body with a plurality of substantially solid
imperforate planar faces.” Claim 1, lines 3-4. The
description disclosed in Waters does not
unambiguously describe a tetrahedron with “solid
imperforate planar faces.” Waters does use the term
tetrahedron for artificial reef modules, but also
shows that the shape of the module has been modified
by rounding the corners and indenting the sides,
such that the resulting shape no longer has “planar
faces” and sharp corners. [Brief, page 13.]
We are unpersuaded by the appellant’s arguments. While
the appellant is correct in noting that the corner and edges
of the
tetrahedron illustrated by Waters in Fig. 1C are rounded (as
distinguished from the sharp edges and corners depicted by the
appellant and described by Danel with respect to a tetrahedron
in the paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2), there is no claim
limitation which would preclude such an arrangement. It is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007