Appeal No. 1996-0941
Application 08/091,421
- aluminous cement;
- high alumina melted cement;
- etc.
These disclosures provide a sound indication that “high
alumina cement” and “aluminous cement” have the same meaning,
and the examiner sets forth no evidence or reasoning which
shows that these disclosures are in error.
For the above reasons, the evidence of record, on
balance, weighs in favor of a finding that “high alumina
cement” and “aluminous cement” are synonymous as argued by
appellant. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 8-
13 and 15-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § § 102(b) and 103
Appellant acknowledges that the components in the claimed
binding agent were known in the art at the time of appellant’s
invention (brief, pages 6-7). Appellant’s argument is that 4
the prior art does not disclose or suggest a binding agent
which contains aluminous cement in an amount which is greater
than zero but less than 5 wt.% (brief, pages 7-8).
4 Citations herein to appellant’s brief are to the
substitute appellant’s brief filed on April 26, 1995, (Paper
No. 21).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007