Appeal No. 1999-2815
Application 08/641,827
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
unpatentability are:
Graham (‘651) 3,659,651 May 2, 1972
Wimmer 3,720,540 Mar. 13, 1973
Graham et al. (Graham ‘627) 4,527,627 Jul 9, 1985
Hermann et al. (Hermann) 5,256,703 Oct. 26, 1993
Claims 1-19 and 43-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Graham ‘627 in view of Graham ‘651 or
Wimmer. 1
Claims 39-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Graham ‘627 in view of Graham ‘651 or Wimmer,
and further in view of Hermann.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the brief and reply brief, and
below, we will reverse each of the aforementioned rejections.
On page 5 of the brief, appellants state that Wimmer is
applicable to the bath tub coating art. Appellants argue that
the bath tub coating art is non-analogous to the proppant coating
art. Appellants state that Wimmer employs long fibers.
Appellants state that there is no guarantee that the
reinforcement achieved by Wimmer (using long fibers on a large
substrate) would occur for fibers sufficiently small to be
employed with small proppant particles as a substrate.
Appellants further state that one skilled in the art would not
look to the bath tub coating art for guidance in the high
1 We note that Paper No. 26 (a communication from the examiner)
indicates that claims 43-46 were inadvertently omitted from this
rejection. Hence, we have included these claims in this rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007