Appeal 2006-1080
Application 10/109,343
softening point above that of boiling water, could be applied
and dried in less than a second, especially when the preferred
roller coating technique of pitch application was used.
Specification 3, ll. 7-11.
Independent claim 1 includes the limitations that the “pitch is a
brittle, glassy non-asphaltic solid at ambient temperature.” The
Specification states that “[a] suitable material will, if heated and poured onto
a surface in the form of a thin layer a few mm thick, form a brittle glassy
solid which can be shattered if hit” (Specification 3, ll. 29-30). Although
the pitch is described as brittle, the specification states that when applied
under certain conditions, the resultant coating “becomes an integral part of
the board and will not break excessively when hit with a hammer”
(Specification 8, ll. 32-33). Thus, claim 1 further requires that the pitch is
applied at conditions which ensure a sufficiently thin coating and penetration
of coating into the porous surface to prevent shattering of the coating when
screws, nails, and the like are driven into the board. Claim 1 recites, in
particular, that “at least about 10% of the pitch penetrates into the porous
board.” The Specification states that one suitable method of applying the
coating involves first heating the board such that the top of the board is
heated but the inner portions are relatively cool (Specification 9). According
to the Specification, the superficial heating allows some of the pitch to
penetrate into the board until it encounters cooler substrate where it will then
thicken (Specification 9).
According to Appellants, the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness because the applied prior art does not teach
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007