Appeal No. 1997-1001
Application No. 08/369,202
binder solution wherein a “prereact” is further modified by
reaction with melamine, much like the suggested prior art
ammonia, urea, melamine modified resin solution of Coventry
which is described as useful “in lieu of a premix” and as
having “reduced precure” in comparison with binders prepared
using urea as the sole nitrogenous reactant. See column 5,
lines 3-5 and column 6, lines 6-10 of Coventry. With respect
to the high binding efficiency associated with appellants’
binder solutions, we observe that appellants have provided no
objective evidence in this record demonstrating any
differences in binding efficiencies with Coventry’s preferred
ammonia/urea modified binder solution. In this regard, the
tested binder efficiency for the comparative control sample in
Table 1 at page 15 of the specification involves the testing
of a traditional urea binder prereact.
In light of the above, we affirm the examiner’s rejection
of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we
denominate our affirmance as involving a new rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) since our analysis of the
patentability issues is based on product-by-process legal
principles.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007