Appeal No. 2000-1804
Application 08/668,598
The Rejection of Claims 3, 5, 6, 21, 24, 27-29, 34, 35, and 37 Under 35 USC §103(a)
Claims 3, 5, 6, 21, 24, 27-29, 34, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 USC
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Bagley in view of either Cuthberty or Stark-Kasley
or vice versa, further in view of Burzynski.
The Examiner states that Bagley in view of Cuthbert or Stark-Kasley does not
teach a mixture of organopoylsiloxane resins. (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 17-
18). Burzynski is said to teach organopolysiloxane resins which can be utilized as a
coating or film (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, lines 4-8).
The Rejection of Claims 20 and 30 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Claims 20 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bagley in view of Cuthbert or Stark-Kasley or vice versa further in view of
Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, “Laminated Wood-Based Composites to Mass
Transfer.”
The prior art is said by the Examiner to fail to teach the specific type of
woodboard, density, or thickness. However, the Examiner states that the prior art
teaches the application of organopolysiloxane resins to wood to achieve a water
repellent article. The Examiner’s position is that one of skill in the art is presented with
the suggestion that the organopolysiloxane resins are applicable to any porous surface,
in the absence of any showing of criticality (Examiner’s Answer, page 7, line 18 - page
8, line 6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007