Appeal No. 2005-0359
Application No. 09/333,917
(B) 0-2 parts by weight per 1 part by weight of
Component (A) of a pre-polymer that dissolves or
swells in (A);
(C) 2-5 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight
based on Components (A) + (B) of at least one paraffin
and/or wax;
(D) a redox system, containing an accelerator
and a peroxide catalyst or initiator in an amount that
is adequate for cold-curing of Component (A); and
(E) optionally, at least one conventional
additive,
wherein the multifunctional (meth)acrylate and
component (C) are together present in an amount
effective for the reaction resin, when applied to
concrete at a thickness of approximately 1 cm and set
at ambient temperature for 90 minutes, to be non-
tacky.
18. The reaction resin according to Claim 17,
wherein said multifunctional (meth)acrylate is 1,4-
butanediol dimethacrylate; component (B) is a polymer
based on butyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate.
The examiner relies on the following prior art reference as
evidence of unpatentability:
Hari et al. (Hari) 5,516,546 May 14, 1996
Claims 1 through 4 and 7 through 18 on appeal stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hari.
(Examiner’s answer mailed Aug. 12, 2004 at 3-13.)1
1 In the Jan. 28, 2004 Office action, claims 1-4 were
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2 (id. at 2) and claims 1-4 and
7-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Hari (id. at 3). The examiner indicates in the answer at 2-3
that the §112, ¶2 rejection has been withdrawn. As to the
§102(b) rejection, the examiner did not repeat the rejection in
the answer. Accordingly, we presume that this rejection has
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007