Appeal 2007-3794
Application 10/850,517
comprising the body of the board (Sub. Br. 4). However, a moisture-
resistant foam center board is not equivalent to a moisture-resistant
composite board because the composite board comprises facers mated to the
center board (FF 5).
[13] Indeed, Geary expressly suggests applying a weather protective layer
over the filled foam board (Geary, ¶ 15).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to treat
the facer(s) of the Geary's composite board with a water based
silicone/silane emulsion as disclosed by Gill in order to further enhance the
moisture resistance of the composite board in addition to the moisture-
resistance provided by the foam center board. Therefore, this argument is
not persuasive of Examiner error in his conclusion of obviousness.
As to both the obviousness rejections based on either Geary or
Bondoc in view of Gill as evidenced by Terae, Appellants further argue that
the silicone elastomer (silane) emulsion treatment of Gill should be limited
to glass fiber facer materials because paper and glass fibers have different
properties (Sub. Br. 4-6).4 First, the cellulosic facers of both Geary and
Bondoc comprise glass, and, therefore, it would have been obvious to apply
the silane/resin binder of Gill to the facers of either Geary or Bodnoc since
their facers include glass as reasoned by the Examiner (Sub. Answer, 6-7).
Second, insofar as the Gill describes its wet proofing silane resins as "water
based silicone elastomer emulsions," one of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably expected paper to take up a water based emulsion. Finally,
Appellants have not pointed to any evidence of record establishing the
4 Appellants have not argued that silicone is not a silane and, therefore, have
waived this argument.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013