Appeal No. 2002-2090
Application 08/430,311
claim 70 and particularly appellant’s argued “placing unset
concrete” step, even though Givens may require two pours of unset
concrete to form the upper and lower halves of his panel
structure.
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s rejections of
claims 70 and 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Givens alone are sustained. In accordance with
appellant’s grouping of the claims on page 9 of the brief, we
also conclude that claim 71 will fall with claim 70, from which
it depends, and that dependent claim 73 will fall with its parent
claim 72.
The last of the examiner’s rejections for our review is that
of claims 57 through 63, 65, 66 and 69 through 78 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Givens in view of Lankard.
In this instance, the examiner points us to Lankard for evidence
that, in the lower ranges set forth in Givens, the addition of
fibers to the concrete does not increase the flexural strength of
the concrete substantially such that it would be considered
“reinforced concrete” within the definition provided by appellant
in the paragraph bridging pages 26-27 of the present
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007