Appeal No. 2000-2288
Application No. 08/960,576
having a mesh size of from 1.5 x 1.5 mm to 2.5 x 2.5 mm
(within appellants' claimed ranges of 10-24 mesh, 10-20 mesh
and 12-16 mesh), and a spray applied airtight coating of an
acrylic polymer or copolymer mortar composition covering the
screen/mesh. In our opinion, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants'
invention to have used a screen mesh in Bear having a mesh
sized as taught in Smith so that the sprayed plastic foam
mortar in Bear would readily adhere to the screen and be
impregnated through the openings of the screen as desired in
Bear (col. 3, lines 33-47) when sprayed from only one side of
the screen panels as seen in Figures 2, 4 and 5 of Bear. As
for the kit of claim 11, we are of the view that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to assemble a
"kit" of components like that set forth in claim 11 on appeal
prior to entering the mine to construct a mine stopping of the
type suggested by the collective teachings of Bear and Smith.
As is clear from Bear (col. 7, lines 8-18), both prefabricated
screen panels and the containers of foam plastic mortar
composition are portable components that can be assembled
together in a "kit" and then transported into the mine.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007