Appeal No. 1997-1676
Application No. 08/255,010
density which is in a ratio to said predetermined current
density which is inversely proportional to the ratio of said
predetermined fractional portion to the entire exposed
surface area of said predetermined portion to be treated,
(d) said treatment being continued until said
predetermined current flow has been reached with respect
to the surface area of embedded steel reinforcement for the
entire said predetermined portion to be treated, and
(e) said treatment being thereupon terminated as to
the entire said predetermined portion to be treated.
The appealed claims stand rejected or stand provisionally
rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by the disclosure of Manning ; 2
2) Claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the disclosure of Manning;
3) Claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the
same invention as the claims of copending Application
08/342,636; and
4) Claims 1 through 6 under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting over the claims of
copending Application 08/342,636 in view of Manning.
2Manning et al. (Manning), “Electrochemical Removal of
Chloride Ions from Concrete: Initial Evaluation of the Pier
S19 Field Trial,” TRB, Jan. 1991.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007