Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
1986).
Considering specifically the rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Waters in view of
Martin and Kiselewski, the appellant notes various alleged
deficiencies of the references individually and urges that
there is no
suggestion to combine the teachings of the references in the
manner proposed by the examiner. We disagree. As we have
noted above in the § 102 rejection, Waters clearly teaches a
reef module in the form of a solid tetrahedron made of
concrete.
Martin is directed to the making of concrete posts and
suggests that as “an environmental benefit” the concrete may
also include filler of “recyclable rubber, e.g. from discarded
tires chipped to a size of 0.5 inch and smaller” (see column
1, lines 59 and 60). The appellant makes much of the fact
that Martin utilizes a polyurethane sleeve as an outer shell
for his posts, however, all of the features of the secondary
reference need not be bodily incorporated into the primary
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007