Appeal No. 96-0821
Application 07/973,870
the Examiner's Answer; and (4) the above-cited prior art
references.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed
materials, we reverse both prior art rejections.
OPINION
Independent claim 12 on appeal recites a pozzolanic
composition comprising from 50% to 80% by weight of silica fume
and from 20% to 50% by weight of one or more non-silica fume
pozzolans. Likewise, independent claims 16 and 22 recite a
pozzolanic composition comprising from 50% to 80% by weight of
silica fume and from 20% to 50% by weight of a non-silica fume
pozzolan. The Flood reference is clearly insufficient to support
a conclusion of obviousness of claims containing those
limitations. Flood discloses a method of treating colloidal
silicon dioxide dust, i.e., the dust commonly found in waste
gases from furnaces producing metallic silicon or silicon-
containing alloys. Flood does not, however, disclose or suggest
a pozzolanic composition comprising a mixture of 50% to 80% by
weight of silica fume and from 20% to 50% by weight of a non-
silica fume pozzolan. The examiner's finding, that the "silicon
dioxide dust" of Flood would have suggested fly ash, is not
supported by any factual evidence of record. See the Examiner's
Answer, page 4, first paragraph. For these reasons, we do not
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007