Appeal No. 96-0002
Application No. 07/860,523
“thixotropic means” in the sense of Rettenmaier’s defined
“fibrous fillers”. In short, we cannot subscribe to the
examiner’s position that Rettenmaier suggests the use of
“fibers of any type” inclusive of steel reinforcing fibers as
required by Gallmann.
We also agree with appellants that it is speculative to
contend that Rettenmaier suggests the use of a binding
substance having the dual disintegration properties required
by the present claims. In this regard, Rettenmaier teaches
that the binding agent is preferably bitumen itself, a water
insoluble material. See column 4, lines 2-5 of Rettenmaier.
In light of the record before us, we are constrained to
reverse the stated rejection of the appealed claims for
obviousness. We also reverse the separate rejection of
appealed claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
While the claim language “stiff” may be broad in scope, we
agree with
appellants that the claim in question sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of
particularity.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007