Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
that the artisan would have found in obvious as a matter of
“common sense” to join the “packed” forms or molds together at
an upper portion thereof if, for no other reason, than to
prevent them
from tipping over. This being the case, we are satisfied that
a combined consideration of Waters and Harza establishes the
obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 5 and 6
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning next to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Harza in view of Creter, the
examiner has relied upon Creter for a teaching of grooves.
Claim 7, however, requires the grooves to be vertically
oriented whereas the grooves 16 in Creter are horizontally
oriented. Since we find nothing in the combined teachings of
Harza and Creter which would fairly suggest vertically
oriented grooves, we will not sustain the rejection of claim
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on these two references.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harza in view of
Martin, Kiselewski and Viner. As the examiner has noted,
Harza teaches that concrete modules are formed “with the
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007