Appeal No. 2003-0710 Page 4
Application No. 09/513,097
using starch, a carbohydrate, in the gypsum core and does not use any other material in the
gypsum core that can be considered ‘fungus nutrients.’” (Answer, p. 4). This finding is
unsupported by the record before us.
The portion of White cited by the Examiner does not support the Examiner’s finding that
White discloses formulating a core containing no starch (Answer, p. 7). The portion relied upon,
i.e., column 4, lines 12-17, states only that “the invention can be practiced using a core
formulation containing no additive such as starch for aiding the paper to core bonding
properties.” (emphasis added). This statement follows a disclosure of a formulation which
specifies the use of “only that amount of starch which is present in the set accelerator used” and
which specifies a level of 2 lbs. of starch per thousand sq. ft. of ½" gypsum board. White, thus,
does not contemplate eliminating all starch for all uses from the core.
Moreover, Appellants argue that the level of set accelerating starch disclosed by White,
i.e., 2 lbs per thousand sq. ft. of ½" board, equates to 0.121 wt% of the core weight (Brief, p. 6).
This level is outside that allowed by the claims and the Examiner does not throw doubt upon the
Appellants’ determination.
We also cannot agree that there is a sufficient basis for the finding that White “does not
use any other material in the gypsum core that can be considered ‘fungus nutrients’.” (Answer, p.
4). Contrary to the position of the Examiner, it cannot be assumed here that silence in the broad
disclosure of White equals absence of the ingredients at issue (Answer, p. 9). The broad
disclosure of White focuses on the identity of the defoamer and provides little guidance as to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007