Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
waves.” The appellant also argues that his modules are made
without screeding, however, even if this is the case, there is
no claimed limitation which would preclude screeding.
Features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of
patentability. In re Self, supra. It therefore follows that
we are of the opinion that a combined consideration of Harza,
Martin and Viner establishes the obviousness of the subject
matter defined by claims 8 and 9 within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Considering next the rejection of claims 11-13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Waters in view of
Martin, Kiselewski and Viner, we are of the opinion that it
would have been obvious to utilize in the formation of the
concrete reef module disclosed by Waters in FIG 1C disposable
pieces of resilient material in view of the teachings Martin
for the same reasons that we set forth above with respect to
the § 103 rejection of claim 2. As in the case of the § 103
rejection of claim 2, we see no need to rely on the teachings
of Kiselewski. As we have set forth above in regard to the §
103 rejection of claims 3, 10 and 16, we are of the opinion
that the provision of “waste” concrete is a product-by-process
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007