Appeal No. 2005-0146
Application No. 10/274,635
this limitation is not recited in the claims (see the Answer, page
5).
Appellants argue that Miller uses the term “coat” differently
than in the present invention and that Figures 2A, 4, 5, 7 and 8
show the slurry covering and penetrating the fabric (Brief, page
3). This argument is not well taken since appellants admit that
the slurry “covers” the fabric (or vice versa). Furthermore, as
discussed above, slurry “penetrating” the fabric is not precluded
from the claimed subject matter. Additionally, we note that the
embodiment of Miller shown in Figure 2D discloses the core layer of
gypsum slurry 12 encapsulated (i.e., covered) on both sides by the
first and second mesh fabrics with no slurry “penetrating” through
the fabric.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established that every limitation
of claim 28 on appeal is described by Miller within the meaning of
section 102(b). Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of
claim 28, and claims 21 and 25 which stand or fall with claim 28,
under section 102(b) over Miller.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007