Appeal No. 1999-0194
Application No. 08/436,626
prestress[ed] strand” and claim 16 is directed to a method of
bridge construction comprising the step of “placing a concrete
diaphragm between longitudinal bridge beams.”1
The Evidence
No prior art patent documents are relied upon by the
examiner in support of the rejections made in the final
rejection (Paper No. 8). Instead, the examiner relies on
information contained in the declaration on April 19, 1995 of
Heinrich O. Bonstedt (the Bonstedt declaration) and the
declaration on July 3, 1996 of Gordon A. Nagle (the Nagle
declaration) concerning activity by appellant in connection
with the construction and use of bridges over the Conewago
Creek in York County, Pennsylvania (the Conewago Creek bridge)
and the Schuylkill River in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
(the Schuylkill River bridge).
The Standing Rejections
1In the event of further prosecution, the examiner may
wish to consider whether claims such as claim 10 (which does
not require the bridge diaphragm thereof to be “precast”) and
claim 16 (which does not require the utilization of a
“precast” diaphragm in the practice of the method thereof)
patentably distinguish over conventional cast-in-place bridge
diaphragms and their use in the construction of bridges.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007