Appeal No. 95-3935
Application 08/162,995
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-5 and 7-9
over Webb in view of Brouessard; claim 6 over Webb in view of Randall and Sanchez.3
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the
examiner and agree with appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, these rejections will be reversed.
Rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-9
Webb discloses a wall panel system which includes, in order, a steel stud frame,
phenolic foam insulation, a calcium silicate panel, fiberglass mesh, a layer of “Icote”, and a
sealing layer (col. 1, lines 59-68). The Icote includes acrylic resin, fibers, vicron (i.e.,
calcium carbonate), fungicide, coloring agents, cement and water (col. 2, lines 31-33). The
proportions of the components of the Icote are not disclosed, and the reference does not
indicate that the Icote is flexible. One of the brochures of record states that the fibers give
4
the Icote permanent elasticity, but does not indicate that the elasticity is sufficient to permit
3The rejections of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph and of claims 1-
5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Webb were withdrawn in the examiner’s answer
(page 2).
4ICOTE Insulating Textured Coating for Residential Commercial and Industrial
Structures, 07240/ICO, Claremont-ICOTE Inc., third page (undated).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007