Appeal No. 2006-1297 Page 7
Application No. 10/699,595
cannot contact even the protective film or cover of the foam or plastic because of
the surrounding concrete. Couched in the very wording of this teaching, however,
is the recognition that such protection by the concrete, while perhaps substantial, is
not complete and infallible. That recognition coupled with the understanding that
concrete tends to develop cracks below the water line, as evidenced by Shorter,
would have imbued one of ordinary skill in the art with an appreciation of the
advantages of providing a protective polymeric coating on the buoyant core 12 of
Thomson to protect the core from attack from acids, corrosives and the like, as
taught by Gonzalez.
In light of the above, we find no error on the part of the examiner in
rejecting appellant’s independent claims 1, 4 and 6 as being unpatentable over
Thomson in view of Gonzalez and Shorter. Accordingly, the rejection of these
claims, as well as dependent claims 2 and 7, which the appellant has not argued
separately apart from claims 1, 4 and 6, is sustained.
Dependent claims 3, 5 and 8 further recite a vent extending from the core to
an exterior surface of the concrete and in communication with the atmosphere. In
rejecting these claims as being unpatentable over Thomson in view of Gonzalez
and Shorter and further in view of either Rytand or Robinson, the examiner has
taken the position that Rytand’s teaching of utility chases 44 through the flotation
core 38 of a floating concrete dock section for insertion of utility lines would have
suggested provision of such utility chases through the core 12 of Thomson’s wharf
unit and that such utility chases must inherently communicate with the atmosphere
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007