Appeal 2007-3794
Application 10/850,517
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Facts
relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope and content
of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed invention and the
prior art, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art and (4) relevant objective
evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82
USPQ2d at 1389; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
Geary and Bondoc each disclose foam boards comprising a rigid
polyisocyanurate foam center and a facing material comprising paper (a
cellulosic material) and glass fibers (FF 5 and FF 7, respectively). Gill
discloses treating a facing material comprising glass fibers with a wet
proofing resin, i.e., a water based silicone elastomer emulsion (FF 9). The
Examiner found that neither Geary nor Bondoc disclose treating the
cellulosic facer material with silane (FF 6 and FF 8, respectively). The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art "to have the paper facing material of Geary treated with a silicone
elastomer emulsion as taught by Gill motivated by the desire to impart the
wetting proofing of the paper facing material" (Sub. Answer 4). The
Examiner similarly concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art "to have the paper facing material of Bondoc treated
with a silicone elastomer emulsion as taught by Gill motivated by the desire
to impart the wetting proofing of the paper facing material" (Sub. Answer,
5).
Regarding the obviousness rejection based on Geary and Gill, as
evidenced by Terae, Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine
Geary and Gill because Geary's foam board composite is already moisture-
resistant by virtue of the filler materials incorporated into the foam material
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013