Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
Kiselewski, we see no need to resort to the teachings of this
references. We are further of the view that one of ordinary
skill in this art would have found it obvious to use “spent”
concrete in the method Harza in light of the teaching by Viner
that “unused” concrete may be used to form “concrete products”
for the reasons stated above with respect to the § 103
rejection of claims 3, 10 and 16.
The appellant argues that Harza discloses that
“hydrostatic pressure can easily lift and dislodge revetment
blocks from an embankment. Harza, pg. 1, col. 2, lines 5-15”
(reply brief, page 3) and, thus, teaches away. We must point
out, however, that the noted portion of Harza refers, not to
his blocks as the appellant would have us believe, but to
“concrete slabs” of the prior art (see column 1, lines 39 and
54). It is also the appellant’s contention that Harza’s
modules are not used for forming an artificial reef; however,
claims 8 and 9 are directed to a method of making (rather than
using) modules. In any event, the artisan would have
recognized as a matter of “common sense” that Harza’s modules
would be useful in reef construction, particularly in view of
the mention in Harza of “shore or beach protection against
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007