Appeal No. 97-4084
Application 08/330,672
in the embedded concrete (Examiner's An-
swer, page 5).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the prior art in light of
the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have reached the determination that the
applied prior art does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the claims on appeal. Therefore,
the obvious- ness rejection of the claims on appeal will be
reversed.
Before we begin our obviousness analysis, we raise
the issue of claim construction. We construe the claim limi-
tation of "two or more materials" consistent with the specifi-
cation as calling for two or more differing materials. See,
for example, specification at page 11, lines 3-10.2
2Given our construction of the independent claim as
calling for two or more differing materials, we have construed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007