Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
concrete module having each face intersecting with an adjacent
face “at an angle which is perpendicular.” The examiner
thereafter concludes that it would have been obvious to
include resilient pieces of tire chips in the concrete module
of Danel in view of the teachings of Martin and Kiselewski.
On the other hand, the appellant argues that:
It is true that Danel refers to a parallelepiped in
his disclosure, though perhaps he uses the term
inaccurately. The blocks disclosed in the Danel’s
figures do not have pairs of parallel planar
surfaces, but instead have non-parallel surfaces for
the purposes of creating the “necessary high
proportion of voids.” Danel (col 4 lines 57-58).
[Brief, page 32.]
We are unpersuaded by the appellant’s contentions. There
is absolutely nothing to indicate that Danel has used the term
parallelepiped “inaccurately” as the appellant would have us
believe. Instead Danel utilizes the term “parallelepiped” to
describe the blocks of the prior art. More specifically with
reference to these prior art blocks Danel states that
Such sloping concrete structures have been
constructed, for example, with blocks of concrete,
which are usually given the form of a
parallelepiped, because that form is very simple.
[Column 1, lines 30-34.]
See also column 2 lines and 3 of Danel wherein in is stated
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007