Appeal No. 2006-1073
Application No. 10/228,815
Upon thorough review of the opposing arguments presented by
appellants and the examiner, it is clear to us that the present
appeal is not ripe for decision.
Appellants set forth the following argument at page 7 of the
principal brief:
Such cellulose fibers have, in the past, been treated
for fungal resistance with heavy metal biocides, such
as copper sulfate, DDAC, or DDAB. Prior to intro-
duction of fibers into the cementitious material
utilized to make the fiber board, the cellulose fibers
are subjected to a refining process, which is a
mechanical process that singulates or separates the
fibers from one another. It has been found, however,
that cellulose fibers treated with what was heretofore
considered to be biocidally effective amounts of, for
example, copper sulfate, DDAC, or DDAB, have required
significantly higher energy input for refining and are
also subject to considerable degradation during the
refining process. The appellants herein have found
that the use of a relatively small amount of copper
salt (from 0.01-0.25%) and/or DDAC, DDAB, or mixtures
thereof (from 0.1-2.0%) is surprisingly still
biocidally effective against fungi, while significantly
reducing the refining energy required to singulate the
fibers, and quite surprisingly, without significantly
reducing the fiber length degradation of the fibers
during refining.
Appellants rely upon Tables 5 and 6 of their published
specification for demonstrating unexpected results attributed to
using the claimed amount of the known biocides.
We have searched in vain for any discussion, let alone
rebuttal, of appellants' specification data in the Examiner's
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007