Appeal 2006-1080
Application 10/109,343
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to determine the amount of penetration into the porous substrate that
optimizes the bonding between the coal tar pitch and the porous substrate.
As noted by the Examiner, Rajalingam teaches that such material has a high
penetration value for porous substrates, which is a different property than the
ASTM International penetration value referred to by the dissent.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Jackson, Stern, Rajalingam, Lamport, Rothbühr and
Wombles and of Seitz, Jackson, Stern, Rajalingam, Lamport, Rothbühr and
Wombles with Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for
nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by
appealed claims 1 through 5 and 22 would have been obvious as a matter of
law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2005).
AFFIRMED
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007