Appeal No. 2003-1885
Application No. 09/837,226
We reverse all of the rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and those reasons set
forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Green discloses a fibrous mat faced
gypsum board coated with a water resistant coating, where the
fibrous mat may be glass fibers applied to one or both surfaces of
the gypsum core (Answer, page 3). The examiner finds that Green
does not teach the water resistant coating as recited in the claims
on appeal (Answer, page 4). However, the examiner applies Gay for
the teaching of a water resistant coating utilized to impregnate
fiber mat-faced gypsum boards, where the coating comprises a
polymer latex binder, a second binder, and a mineral pigment (id.,
citing the abstract of Gay). The examiner further finds that the
coating of Gay is taught to be water resistant, dimensionally
stable, and economically practical, as well as useful as an
underlayment of facer material (id.). From these findings, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to utilize the water resistant coating
taught in Gay on the mat-faced gypsum board taught in Green because
said coating is water resistant, dimensionally stable, economical
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007