Appeal No. 2005-0146
Application No. 10/274,635
B. The Rejections under § 103(a)
The findings from Miller are adopted as discussed above. As
recognized by the examiner, Miller does not teach constructing the
gypsum core with reduced amounts of materials that may serve as
fungal nutrients, such as starch (Answer, page 3). The examiner
applies Long for the teaching that the use of starch in gypsum
boards may be eliminated by the alternate use of polyvinyl alcohol
(PVA) as a binder in the gypsum core for improved water resistance
(id.). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellants’ invention to use PVA in the gypsum core of Miller as
a substitute for starch, with the expectation of improved water
resistance of the resulting gypsum board as taught by Long (id.).
We agree.
Appellants argue that Long does not provide any motivation to
combine with Miller, does not provide any suggestion of deleting
starch for avoiding fungal growth, and has no teaching that PVA
alone can be used as a substitute for starch (Brief, page 4; Reply
Brief, page 2).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted
by the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 6), Long expressly teaches the
use of PVA, along with a borate compound, “to eliminate some or all
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007