Ex Parte OU - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-0418                                                        
          Application No. 09/457,183                                                  


          the invention may be ascertained from representative independent            
          claim 1, reproduced below:                                                  
               1.  A paper overlaid wood board comprising:                            
               an oriented strand board core having a bottom surface and              
          a top surface, said oriented strand board core including a                  
          plurality of strands, each of said strands being generally                  
          oriented parallel to one another;                                           
               a resin impregnated paper overlay adhesively secured to said           
          top surface of said oriented strand board, said paper overlay               
          having a basis weight of about 25 lbs./msf to about 75 lbs./msf             
          and a resin content of about 20% to about 60% by dry weight.                
               The examiner has relied upon the following references as               
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Lindquist et al. (Lindquist)     5,718,786          Feb. 17, 1998           
          Tingley                          5,885,685          Mar. 23, 1999           
          Jaffee et al. (Jaffee)           6,187,697 B1       Feb. 13, 2001           
          (filed Dec. 31, 1998)                                                       
               Claims 1-3 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)           
          as unpatentable over Jaffee in view of Tingley and Lindquist                
          (Answer, page 3).1  We reverse the rejection on appeal for the              
          reasons set forth below.                                                    






               1The examiner has separately rejected claim 13 under the               
          same ground and the same references (Answer, page 4).  Since this           
          latter rejection is subsumed by the former rejection, we need               
          only discuss the former rejection.                                          
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007