Appeal No. 2006-1297 Page 6
Application No. 10/699,595
from attack by acids, corrosives, detergents, organic solvents and the like that can
penetrate the concrete blanket 18 through cracks that develop below the water line.
We also agree with the examiner’s determination, which has not specifically been
challenged by the appellant, that it would have been obvious to form the
pretensioned cables 34 and wires or cables 48 of Thomson’s wharf unit of
corrosion-resistant galvanized steel in view of the recognition in the art, as
evidenced by Gonzalez, of the suitability of galvanized steel for such purpose.
The appellant points out that the Gonzalez float unit is not of a construction
having a foam or other buoyant core encased in concrete, as are the Thomson and
Shorter units and as called for in appellant’s claims. Rather, the Gonzalez structure
is designed to be open to ingress and egress of water (brief, p. 5). Further, the
appellant urges that Shorter does not attribute any negative significance to the
development of cracks and, instead, teaches that the use of the foam block permits
the unit to float even though cracks develop in the concrete (brief, p. 6). Thus,
according to the appellant, the examiner’s reliance on Shorter does not establish
that one of ordinary skill in the art would view the concrete encased foam structure
of Thomson or Shorter as requiring any correction or modification (id.).
We fully appreciate the structural differences between the open-bottom unit
of Gonzalez, wherein the foam blocks are exposed to the water, and the concrete-
encased wharf unit of Thomson. We also understand that Gonzalez teaches that
attack by acids, corrosives and the like is prevented partly by the surrounding
concrete and that immiscible solvents that float on the surface of the water often
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007