Appeal No. 2003-0710 Page 3
Application No. 09/513,097
Burkard et al. (Burkard) 3,870,538 Mar. 11, 1975
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 10 over White in view of Bruce and Randall;
2. Claims 3-5 over White, Bruce, and Randall and further in view of Adler;
3. Claim 9 over White, Bruce, and Randall and further in view of Philips.
We reverse with respect to all the rejections for the reasons presented by Appellants and
those that follow.
OPINION
All of the claims are directed to a fungus resistant gypsum board having a gypsum core
sandwiched between polymeric fibrous sheets adhered with synthetic adhesive (Claims 1 and 6).
The claims additionally require that the core contain low levels of additives that serve as fungus
nutrients (Claim 1: less than 0.03 % dry weight; Claim 6: less than 0.02 % wet weight).
According to the specification, “‘fungus nutrients’ means carbohydrate or cellulosic based
materials, or other organic materials which are biodegradable by fungi commonly found in
building construction materials.” (specification, p. 6, ll. 17-19). The claims, therefore, all require
the substantial exclusion of starch, paper fibers and other organic nutrient materials in the core.
The rejection is based upon the use of the core formulation of White with the polymeric
spunbonded sheet facing taught by Bruce. The Examiner finds that “White teaches away from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007