Appeal No. 2006-1297 Page 8
Application No. 10/699,595
and, alternatively, that Robinson’s teaching of a fluid regulator to prevent the
build-up of gasses in the interior of the float generated from reactions within the
flotation substance 130 catalyzed by heat when the float is exposed to the sun
would have suggested the provision of such a fluid regulator on Thomson’s wharf
unit to prevent the build-up of gasses generated in the flotation substance when the
unit is exposed to the sun. The appellant has not specifically challenged any of
these positions taken by the examiner.
With respect to the rejection of claims 3, 5 and 8 as being unpatentable over
Thomson in view of Gonzalez, Shorter and Rytand, appellant’s only argument
(brief, pp. 7-8; reply brief, p. 9) appears to be that Rytand does not disclose any
form of a vent. This argument is not persuasive, as it does not address the
modification proposed by the examiner, namely, to provide utility chases through
the core 12 of Thomson’s wharf unit to run utility lines therethrough, or attack the
contention of the examiner (answer, p. 7) that such chase would read on the recited
vent limitations of claims 3, 5 and 8, regardless of whether it is called a “chase” or
a “vent.”
The appellant’s only specific argument with respect to the rejection of
claims 3, 5 and 8 as being unpatentable over Thomson in view of Gonzalez,
Shorter and Robinson is that Robinson involves a plastic float drum, not a concrete
shell (reply brief, p. 9). The appellant does not, however, contend that the problem
of gasses generated in the flotation material by reactions catalyzed by heat from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007