Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Here, one of ordinary skill in this art would have found it
obvious to provide the artificial reef module disclosed by
Waters in FIG. 1C with a U-shaped hook in view of the
teachings of Leeds in order to achieve Leeds’s expressly
stated advantage of conveniently handling and transporting the
module (see lines 63-66 of page 1 of Leeds). Accordingly, we
share the examiner’s view that a combined consideration of
Waters and Leeds establishes the obviousness of the subject
matter defined by claim 4 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Considering next the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harza, the appellant
argues that
Harza envisions the placement of many single molds
adjacently to each other so that concrete can be
poured from a moving mixer across the molds. Harza
indicates that screeding is required to ensure that
the molds are filled completely so that the modules
produced are all of equal size. How so many
individual molds can be placed in such a fashion as
to allow screeding without turning over the
individual molds is not explained.
The
invention of claims 5 and 6 avoids numerous problems
associated with Harza’s teaching. First,
applicant’s mold is a free-standing, rigid, single
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007