Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
limitation which cannot serve to structurally distinguish the
reef module defined by these claims over the reef module of
Waters, as modified by Martin. In any event, even if the
provision of “waste” concrete was deemed to be a structural
limitation, we are of the opinion that it further would have
been obvious to utilize “waste” concrete in the manufacture of
the reef module disclosed by Waters in FIG. 1C for the same
reasons we have set forth above in regard to the § 103
rejection of claims 3, 10 and 16.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that a combined
consideration of Waters, Martin and Viner establishes the
obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 11-13
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning last to the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Danel in view of
Martin and Kiselewski, it is the examiner’s position that
Danel discloses a solid artificial reef module
made from concrete and in the form of a
parallelepiped but lacks having tire chips in the
concrete body. The most common parallelepipeds are
cubes which by definition have planar faces
intersecting with each adjacent face at an angle
which is perpendicular. [Answer, page 11.]
It is thus the examiner’s position that Danel suggests a
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007