Appeal No. 1999-2845 Page 12
Application No. 08/495,471
provide a coating binder." In our view, the teachings of
Stewart would not have suggested modifying the glass wool of
Held to include a binder but instead would have suggested
replacing the glass wool in Held's tank with a bulked or
textured filamentary plastic material.
With regard to claim 19 and its dependent claims (i.e.,
claims 20 to 23, 45 and 46), it is clear to us that the
subject matter of claim 19 (i.e., a coating on the glass wool
comprising a binder, a resin, a hardener, methylpolysilane, a
dust-collecting agent, and silicone) is not suggested by the
applied prior art. The examiner has not even alleged that the
subject matter of claim 19 would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art from the applied prior art. In this regard, we note
that the examiner has not pointed to any teaching in the
applied prior art of a coating including the recited hardener,
methylpolysilane, dust-collecting agent and silicone.
With regard to claim 34 and its dependent claim (i.e.,
claim 35), it is clear to us that the subject matter of claim
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007