Appeal No. 2003-0710 Page 2
Application No. 09/513,097
INTRODUCTION
Our review is limited to the obviousness of claims 1-10, as the Examiner has withdrawn
the provisional rejections previously made under the doctrine of obvious-type double patenting
(Answer, p. 3). Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A fungus resistant gypsum board, comprising:
a first polymeric fibrous sheet, said first sheet having a first surface and opposite first and
second edges;
a second polymeric fibrous sheet, said second sheet having a first surface and opposite
first and second edges;
a gypsum core sandwiched between said first and second sheets, said gypsum core
containing less than 0.03% by weight, based on the weight of the dry gypsum core, of
formulation additives that serve as fungus nutrients; and
a synthetic adhesive on the first and second edges of said second sheet, said synthetic
adhesive adhering the first edge of said first sheet to said first edge of said second sheet, and
adhering the second edge of said first sheet to the second edge of said second sheet.
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
White 4,327,146 Apr. 27, 1982
Adler et al. (Adler) 5,702,828 Dec. 30, 1997
Philips et al. (Philips) 5,879,486 Mar. 9, 1999
(filed Jul. 25, 1997)
Randall 5,981,406 Nov. 9, 1999
(filed Jan. 23, 1998)
Bruce et al. (Bruce)(CA) 1 189 434 Jun. 25, 1985
Appellants rely upon the following prior art reference in rebuttal:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007