Appeal No. 95-3883
Application No. 08/147,987
examiner has determined that to provide Maechtle with a
thixotropic agent would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the invention on appeal. Accordingly, we will
reverse the rejection of the claims on appeal. Our reasons
follow.
We are in general agreement with the examiner's findings
of fact with respect to the Maechtle reference. We
particularly note his finding that Maechtle does not disclose
a thixotropic agent. Turning to a consideration of the
Montgomery patent, we note that Montgomery does not use a
mineral mortar as required in the claim. The Montgomery
patent is directed to a polymer or resin bonding agent.2
2We do note, however, that Montgomery does disclose that a
mineral mortar agent such as portland cement can be used as a
catalyst in his composition.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007