Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964,
966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, even if the recitation that
“waste” concrete was used to form the artificial reef modules
was construed to impart a structural limitation to the claimed
artificial reef module, the examiner has correctly noted that
Viner in column 1, lines 16-22, clearly teaches that “unused”
or “waste” concrete may be used to “make concrete products.” 6
Accordingly, the combined teachings of Waters and Viner would
have suggested to the artisan to make the prior art artificial
reef module disclosed by Martin in FIG. 1C of “waste” concrete
in view of Viner’s teaching of utilizing “waste” or “unused”
concrete rather than disposing of it “outside the plant area”
(column 1, lines 23 and 24). While the appellant contends
that Viner is primally concerned with utilizing waste
concrete by forming it into layers and thereafter crushing the
layers into aggregate, we must point out that patents are part
of the literature of the art and are relevant for all that
they contain. In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ
6We also observe that Benyon in paragraph 7 of his
declaration indicates that it was known that “waste concrete
may be used for oversized retaining blocks.”
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007