Appeal No. 1997-4318
Application 08/469,806
We have considered the specific teachings and the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art
would reasonably have been expected to draw from the teachings of each of the applied references, in
light of the arguments with respect to such teachings advanced by appellants and the examiner. See In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). We find that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have found in Jungk the clear teaching that the pigment granules must contain “one or more
binders for promoting the dispersing of the pigment in cement” (col. 2, lines 55-57) and would have
reasonably inferred from the listing of commercially available binders in the reference (col. 3, lines 33-
51; see also Jungk Examples) that the same are all organic compounds, including the “other
polyhydroxy compounds which are innocuous to the concrete,” which are useful for such purpose.
Thus, contrary to the examiner’s allegations (answer, e.g., pages 3-4), we find no specific suggestion in
this listing or elsewhere in the reference to use an inorganic compound, including inorganic polyhydroxy
compounds, such as provided by the soluble silicates of Weldes et al., as a binder. We further find that
Jungk does disclose that the binders listed in the reference, including those identified as “liquefiers” in the
present specification (page 2, lines 23-36), can be used in an amount of as low as 0.1 weight percent
of the pigment granules and teaches that the granules can contain “optional other additives” (col. 4, lines
2 and 19-21). Therefore, at least some of the pigment granules taught by Jungk would be “substantially
free of organic liquefiers,” as we have interpreted this claim limitation of claims 13 and 27 above, and
can contain other, albeit unspecified, additional ingredients.
Accordingly, pigment granules taught by Jungk to disperse in cement and have particles sizes
(see, e.g., Jungk Examples) falling within the claimed range, differ from the claimed microgranulate
inorganic pigments in that there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the reference to add “one or
more boron, aluminum, silicon, titanium, zinc and tin compounds” in the amount of “from about 0.05 to
about 1 percent (%) by weight,” thereby providing microgranulates that are sufficiently unstable to the
shearing forces of mixing with the particulate building materials so as to “break down and disperse”
therein, as required by claims 13 and 26. Indeed, while the examiner alleges that Jungk would have
suggested that any promoter can be present in an amount falling within the claimed range, he does not
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007