Appeal No. 2002-2090
Application 08/430,311
the context of the claims on appeal, such does not end the
inquiry with regard to claim 57, since we find no basis in Givens
to support the examiner’s speculation that the concrete material
of Givens has a tensile strength “well below 750 psi” (answer,
page 7), or the examiner’s alternative conclusion that a tensile
strength of less than about 750 psi would have been obvious based
on the teachings of Givens. In the first place, the examiner’s
reliance on a wire spacing of 0.5 inch (answer, page 7), is
misplaced, since Givens makes it clear on a number of occasions
(e.g., col. 1, lines 20-25; col. 4, lines 7-10; and col. 16,
lines 28-31) that a very close wire spacing of “less than 0.3
inch” is important to the invention therein.
Further, as noted by appellant (brief, page 13), Givens
seeks to provide a load bearing concrete structural panel member
which utilizes fibrous-concrete having an enhanced useful tensile
strength, both ultimate and first-crack, that is increased
significantly over that of unreinforced concrete, and the only
value mentioned in Givens as providing an adequate safety factor
for the fibrous-concrete therein is “1,000 psi in tension” (col.
8, line 53), with ultimate tensile strengths of 2,500 psi and
higher and first-crack tensile strengths of 1,800 psi and higher
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007