Appeal No. 96-2102
Application No. 08/119,205
All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hense in view of Kozuka.
According to the examiner, “[i]n view of Kozuka, it would have
been obvious to include BPAM in the packaged compositions
taught by Kozuka [sic, Hense] in order to improve water
resistance” (Answer, pages 2-3).
This rejection cannot be sustained.
As correctly pointed out by the appellants, the Hense
patent (similar to appealed claim 9) is directed to
compositions useful as borehole-filling masses for anchoring a
fastening element, whereas the Kozuka patent is directed to
compositions useful as a material for coating floors. In
light of the disparate purposes of these respective
compositions, we agree with the appellants’ ultimate
conclusion that it would not have been obvious for one with
ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Hense
and Kozuka in the manner proposed by the examiner. Further,
Hense’s teaching at lines 54 through 62 in column 3 militates
against the examiner’s obviousness position for the reasons
explained in the Reply Brief (to which the examiner has not
responded). In addition to the foregoing, we share the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007