Appeal No. 98-1001 4
Application No. 08/505,455
The Rejections under § 103(a)
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the
grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner
respectively relies upon Kawasaki alone or in view of Edge to reject the claimed subject
matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Kawasaki discloses a method for producing a concrete product by casting concrete
into a waste mold and solidifying the concrete to produce a concrete block on the waste
mold. See column 1, lines 56-58. After removal of the waste mold, a coloring material
is filled into the recessed patterns on the surface of the concrete block followed by
grinding of the surface of the concrete block to produce a concrete product. See column
1, lines 61-65. The term “concrete” is defined as “cement, mortar or plastic or the
mixture thereof which become solidified or hardened by hydration.” See column 3,
lines 66-68. Furthermore, the, “concrete may include a material made of thermosetting
resin such as unsaturated polyester to which pulverized aggregate is added.” See column
4, lines 3-6.
However, as stated by the examiner, Kawasaki, “does not teach the curing of the
second curable thermosetting resin; the sanding of the first and second layers of lamina;
and the heating and curing temperatures claimed.” See Answer, page 4. Moreover, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007