Appeal No. 2006-2413 Page 11
Application No. 10/250,412
spraying apparatus. We therefore reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 55 and 56
over Pomerhn.
To summarize, because the examiner has not established that Izumi ‘807
describes a cementitious mixture comprising a predominantly positively charged
polyelectrolyte, we reverse the anticipation rejection over Izumi ‘807. Because the
examiner has not established that Nadolsky describes a cementitious mixture
comprising a negatively charged polyelectrolyte, we reverse the anticipation rejection
over Nadolsky.
Moreover, because the examiner has not established that Pomerhn explicitly or
inherently discloses a water:cement ratio of about 1:3 to 3:5, we reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 27 and 54, and their dependents, over Pomerhn. Lastly, because the
examiner failed to establish that Pomerhn discloses preparing a cementitious mixture in
a compressed gas spraying apparatus, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claims
55 and 56 over Pomerhn.
3. Obviousness
As noted supra, the examiner has alternatively rejected claims 3-19, 21-23, 25-
40, and 52-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Izumi ‘807, Nadolsky, or
Pomerhn. Answer, pages 4-10.
In addition to these references, the examiner relies on Izumi ‘3164 “to show
surfactants are notoriously known and conventional additives to cement/concrete
compositions,” and relies on Burge5 to show that it “is notoriously known in the art that
4 Izumi et al., U.S. Patent 5,674,316, issued October 7, 1997.
5 Burge et al., U.S. Patent 5,389,144, issued February 14, 1995.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013