Appeal 2006-1080
Application 10/109,343
the weight of Appellant’s arguments in the Substitute Brief. See generally,
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 U.S.P.Q. 785, 788 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact from the references and
conclusions of law based on this substantial evidence as set forth in the
Answer, to which we add the following for emphasis.
The principal issues in this appeal involve whether the combination of
Jackson and Stern and of Seitz, Jackson and Stern would have taught to one
of ordinary skill in this art the claim limitations “a porous board or fibrous
material having a non-tacky surface coating of less than 10 mil thickness of .
. . coal tar pitch . . . wherein at least about 10% of the pitch penetrates into
the porous board or fibrous material.” There is no dispute that the claimed
coal tar pitch of Jackson falls within the “coal tar pitch” as claimed.
Accordingly, since there is no issue in this respect, we need not discuss the
Examiner’s reliance on Rajalingam, Lamport, Rothbühr and Wombles.
We determine that the plain language of claim 1 specifies an article
having any manner of “a porous board or fibrous material” which has a
“non-tacky surface coating” in the range having an upper limit of “less than
10 mil thickness” of any amount of any manner of coal tar pitch having the
properties specified in the claim, wherein an amount of the pitch in the range
having a lower limit of at least 10% of the applied pitch penetrates to any
extent into the porous board or fibrous material.
We find that Jackson would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in
this art thermal insulating material comprising “a foamed polymeric
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007