Appeal No. 2003-0188
Application No. 09/781,386
generated by joint compounds such as those disclosed by Patel and Smith et al. by adding
to the complete and functional joint compounds a dust reducing additive.”
We responded to Appellant’s argument on pages 10 and 11 of our decision. As
stated therein, the claimed invention does not specify the time when a dust reducing
additive is incorporated into a joint compound.3
The remainder of Appellant’s arguments are not directed to specific errors in the
rejection of claims 21, 24 to 30 and 33 to 36. Appellant has not specifically identified the
basis of rejection in which our decision was based on erroneous findings of fact
concerning the prior art. Rather, we find the Appellant in essence is expressing their
disagreement with the merits of our opinion. In support of their general position,
Appellant now argues that joint compound and conventional joint compound refer to end
products. (Request for Rehearing, p. 3). The scope of this argument is unclear.
Specifically the specification, page 5, discloses that joint compound formulations include
a filler and binder material as required components. It is not clear what additional
components are required for the newly argued end product. Moreover, this issue has not
been previously presented for the Examiner’s consideration. We will not consider any
new arguments and/or new evidence which were not raised in the Brief. See 37 CFR
3 We note the specification, page 4, supports our position that the dust reducing additive
can be pre-mixed into the wet joint compound.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007