Appeal No. 1999-0941 Page 6
Application No. 08/756,424
[s]amples using a bottom plate like FIG. 14 tested in compression showed no cracks in
the housing 160 during loading. Furthermore, no cutting into the bituminous adhesive
surface was seen. Without the bottom plate or epoxy potting material, the center core
area or the waffle area cut into the bitumen. The loading causes the bituminous material
to be forced into the cores or recesses 175 of the housing 168 while the perimeter of
the marker deflects upwardly because the reaction forces are not restrained at the
boundaries. This situation causes enough downward deflection through the marker
center leading to crack propagation and potential loss of bond to the pavement [column
9, lines 41-53].
Additionally, we note that Steere points out that the disclosed pavement marker, comprising a
hollow housing including a top wall, depending ribs and either an epoxy filling or a bottom wall (220)
"combines the strength of the epoxy fill - and generally planar bottom surface 310, with the attributes of
'air' cell type retroreflectors, with full walls for the cells so as to provide added strength and minimize
propagation of damage throughout the entire lens" (column 8, lines 35-40).
The examiner relies on the statement on page 18, in lines 4 and 5, of appellants' specification
and Examples 21, 22 and 24 in the TABLE attached thereto (AAPA) to show that available markers
with known good road adhesion performance exhibit an apparent modulus of greater than
approximately 80,000 psi. With the caveat that the prior art markers referenced by appellants in these
statements are limited to filled markers and do not include hollow markers, appellants do not challenge
this characterization of the admitted prior art by the examiner (brief, page 6, footnote 2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007