Appeal No. 1997-1001
Application No. 08/369,202
The subject matter on appeal is directed to an aqueous
binder solution suitable for application to fiberglass
insulation products which has a high binder efficiency. At
the outset, it is significant to note that appellants’ aqueous
binder solution is defined by the appealed claims by a process
of making it. Thus, to a selected aqueous resole having a pH
greater than 7 and excess formaldehyde, urea is added and
reacted as defined by process step (B) in claim 1 to form a
urea-extending prereact. According to appellants’
specification at page 10, lines 19-23, this resultant urea-
extended alkaline prereact “[m]ust yet contain enough
formaldehyde to react with the amount of melamine to be
added.” As set forth in step (C) of claim 1 of appellants’
process, melamine is dissolved into the step (B) prereact
wherein it presumably reacts with some remaining unreacted
formaldehyde in the prereact.
The applied prior art reference to Coventry discloses, in
relevant part, that a modified phenolic resole resin, which
may be used in lieu of a “premix ," may be formed by a process3
3A “premix” is a binder prepared by the prereaction of a
resole resin with urea at around room temperature. To prepare
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007