Ex Parte Boyer et al - Page 15

               Appeal 2006-1080                                                                             
               Application 10/109,343                                                                       

               ll. 41-42).   The Examiner fails to identify any teaching in Jackson or offer                
               any explanation to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have                
               selected a bituminous composition having all of the claimed features.                        
               Likewise, the Examiner fails to provide a convincing explanation as to why                   
               one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the                      
               bituminous coating in a manner which achieved at least 10% penetration into                  
               the board.4 The Examiner does not provide an evidentiary basis to support                    
               his finding that the term “penetration value,” when used in the context of                   
               coal tar pitch, provides a measure of the amount of penetration of the coating               
               into the substrate.5  See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091,                                 


                                                                                                           
                      4 The phrase “penetration into the substrate” as used in the present                  
               claims defines the portion of pitch which actually soaks into the wood or                    
               porous material and binds with it.  See Specification 8, ll. 40-41 (“The most                
               significant constraint is applying the coating in such a way that a significant              
               portion of the pitch actually soaks into the wood or other porous material                   
               and binds with it.”). “The person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to                  
               read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which                 
               the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including                
               the specification.” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313,                          
               75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), cert. denied,                           
               126 S.Ct. 1332 (2006).                                                                       
                      5 The term “penetration value” appears to refer to a measure of the                   
               depth of penetration of a needle into an asphalt sample.  See, e.g., ASTM D                  
               5, “Standard Test Method for Penetration of Bituminous Materials” ASTM                       
               International, June 1, 2006.  See Jackson, p. 2, ll. 41-42 (“Bituminous                      
               compositions can be formulated so as to retain a permanently tacky surface                   
               on drying by including in the composition bitumens having a low                              
               penetration value.”).                                                                        

                                                    15                                                      


Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007