Appeal No. 2005-0146
Application No. 10/274,635
of the starch normally utilized for bonding the paper cover sheets
to the gypsum core” (col. 4, ll. 16-20). As also correctly noted
by the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 6), Long provides the
motivation of improved water resistance to support the combination
of Miller with Long (see Long, abstract; col. 3, ll. 6-13; and col.
13, ll. 13-22). Although appellants are correct that Long does
not teach deleting starch from the gypsum core for the reason of
avoiding fungal growth, a conclusion of obviousness does not have
to be predicated on the identical reason as appellants’ reason.
See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed.
Cir. 1996). As also correctly noted by the examiner (Answer,
paragraph bridging pages 6-7), the claims do not exclude the
additional ingredients of a borate compound and asphalt/wax as
disclosed by Long.
Appellants argue that Long discloses sugar, which is a fungal
ingredient, as a typical element in Table II in column 4 (Reply
Brief, page 2). This argument is not well taken since Long teaches
that standard gypsum slurries may contain sugar (Table II, col. 4,
ll. 60-67) or may omit sugar (Table IV, col. 6, ll. 40-55).
The examiner applies Englert in combination with Miller in the
rejection of claim 26, using Englert as evidence that gypsum boards
were known to be used in both wall and ceiling applications
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007