Appeal No. 2006-2413 Page 16
Application No. 10/250,412
Thus, Pomerhn does not describe the amount of water used in its process as the
amount “typically and conventionally used for an aqueous cement mixture.” The
examiner has not adequately explained why the the amount of water required to
prepare asbestos-containing cementitious sheets by the cylinder method of wet forming
would have understood by those skilled in the art to be the same as the amount of water
“typically and conventionally used for an aqueous cement mixture.” Thus, the
examiner’s argument fails to address the issue of why those skilled in the art would
have found it obvious to use the amount of water recited in claims 27 and 54 in
Pomerhn’s mixture.
Moreover, we do not see, and the examiner does not point to, any other
disclosure in Pomerhn or Izumi ‘316 that would have led one skilled in the art to prepare
an aqueous cementitious mixture containing the claimed amounts of water and Portland
cement.
Because the examiner has not articulated why Pomerhn would have led a skilled
worker to prepare an aqueous cementitious mixture as recited in claims 27 and 54, the
examiner has not established the prima facie obviousness of those claims. We
therefore reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 27 and 54, and their dependents,
over Pomerhn, including when applied in combination with Izumi ‘316.
As discussed supra, Pomerhn does not anticipate claims 55 and 56 because
Pomerhn does not disclose preparing cementitious mixtures in compressed gas
spraying apparatuses. The examiner has cited Burge to show that it “is notoriously
known in the art that concrete or mortar can be sprayed.” Answer, page 4.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013