Appeal No. 2005-0836 Page 3
Application No. 09/880,292
The specific rejections are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3-5, 19-21, 23, 27-29, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Torri in view of (a) Drieskens and (b) Melvold or Woodruff.
2. Claims 6 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Torri in
view of (a) Drieskens and (b) Melvold or Woodruff and further in view of Elste.
Appellants state that the claims do not stand or fall together and list six groupings of
claims (Brief, p. 3). To the extent that the various groupings are argued separately in
conformance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8), the rule in force at the time the Brief was filed, we will
consider them separately.1
We affirm substantially for the reasons advanced by the Examiner in the Answer and add
the following primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
As claim 1 is the broadest claim, our analysis begins there.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a composition containing an asphalt-in-water emulsion wherein
clay is used as an emulsifier. The composition further includes a filler, which can be a sulfate,
and about 0.01 percent by weight or greater of a nonionic surfactant.
1Effective September 13, 2004, 37 CFR § 1.192 was replaced by 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sept. 7, 2004)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007