Appeal No. 1999-2815
Application 08/641,827
skilled in the art to employ the fibers of Graham ‘651, in the
coated proppant of Graham ‘627.
We agree with appellants’ arguments summarized above for the
following reasons.
Graham ‘651 is directed to propping agents composed of
reinforced synthetic resins. See column 1, lines 65-70.
Fibrous reinforcements are used to provide improvement in
compressive strength. See column 2, lines 31-34. Graham ‘651
discloses that laboratory data indicate that glass reinforced
nylon proppants are capable of propping fractures at closure
stresses generally considered too high for conventional propping
agents. See column 3, lines 30-35. Graham ‘651 also indicates
that the data demonstrates that the reinforced nylon proppants
undergo less deformation than unreinforced nylon and therefore
retain a larger percentage of original thickness and maintain the
fracture in a wider propped condition. See column 3, lines 35-
40.
We find that the examiner has not explained how such
reinforcement as described in Graham ‘651 (as summarized above)
would be applicable to Graham ‘627. On page 6 of the answer, the
examiner states that Graham ‘651 teaches that reinforcing a resin
with fibers enhances the dimensional stability of the coating so
formed. The examiner asserts that this teaching is “good enough
to act as a strong motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art
to use fibers to further reinforce the coating of Graham ‘627.”
We find that such a conclusory statement is insufficient to rebut
the points made by appellants.
We also observe that the examiner states that “Graham ‘651
teaches in column 3, lines 24-27, that reinforcing a resin with
fibers enhances the dimensional stability of the coating so
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007