Appeal No. 2003-0710 Page 5
Application No. 09/513,097
other additives present in the core formulation. The tenor of the examples indicates that the
formulation is a standard foamed settable gypsum aqueous slurry (White, col. 3, ll. 5-24). The
examples further indicate that, at the very least, starch was included in such standard
formulations as a set accelerator in amounts above the claimed range (White, col. 3, ll. 19-25).
White refers to Burkard for a description of the starch-based set accelerator used therein (White,
col. 3, ll. 21-23). As pointed out by Appellants, Burkard indicates that, not only do standard
formulations contain starch set accelerator, they contain paper pulp (Burkard, col. 2, ll. 5-20 and
46-50). Appellants further point out that both Bruce and Randall describe including starch and
paper fibers in standard core formulations (Brief, p. 6; see Bruce, p. 7, l. 18 and Randall, col. 8,
ll. 18-21). The evidence as a whole does not support the contention that White describes the
omission of starch and paper fiber from the core formulation.
Adler and Philips, as applied by the Examiner, fail to remedy the deficiencies of the
primary rejection.
We conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established with respect
to the subject matter of claims 1-10. We, therefore, need not address the evidence of secondary
considerations advanced by Appellants.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007