Appeal No. 2006-1297 Page 5
Application No. 10/699,595
ingress of water such as would destroy the buoyancy of the structure (col. 4, ll. 49-
53).
Gonzalez teaches that
[a]ttack by acids, corrosives, detergents, organic solvents,
and the like, is prevented in major part by the protective
cover or film, and partly by the surrounding concrete.
Immiscible solvents, such as gasoline, which float on the
surface of the water often cannot contact even the
protective film or cover of the cellular foam or plastic
because of the surrounding layer of concrete [col. 2, ll.
34-41; emphasis ours].
Shorter is relied on by the examiner as evidence of the recognition in the
prior art at the time of appellant’s invention that cracks develop in the concrete
shells of concrete float units. Specifically, Shorter states that “[u]se of the foam
block permits the unit to float even though cracks develop in the concrete shell
below the water line” (col. 4, ll. 61-63).
In light of the recognition in the art at the time of appellant’s invention that
cracks tend to develop in the concrete blanket or slab of floating concrete units
below the water line, as evidenced by Shorter, the teaching of Gonzalez of coating
or wrapping the foam blocks provided within the concrete shell for buoyancy with
a polymeric film or cover in order to protect the foam blocks from attack by acids,
corrosives, detergents, organic solvents and the like would have provided ample
suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the floating concrete structure art to provide
such a protective polymeric coating on the cores 12 of Thomson to protect them
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007