Appeal No. 2006-2413 Page 15
Application No. 10/250,412
any negatively charged species is in the context of personal care products, not
cementitious mixtures. Moreover, in this disclosure Nadolsky mentions nothing about
the negatively charged polyelectrolytes required in claims 27 and 54-56.
In our view the examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or reasoning that
would have led one skilled in the art to add a negatively charged polyelectrolyte to the
positively charged polyelectrolyte-containing concrete compositions disclosed by
Nadolsky. We therefore reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 3-19, 21-23, 25-40,
and 52-56 over Nadolsky, even as combined with Izumi ‘316.
As discussed supra, we hold that Pomerhn does not anticipate claims 27 and 54
because it does not disclose the water to Portland cement ratio required by those
claims. The examiner urges that even if Pomerhn does not teach the water:cement
ratio recited in claims 27 and 54 “the range of W/C (water/cement) claimed by
appellant[] is that which is typically and conventionally used for an aqueous cement
mixture and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Answer,
page 9.
We do not agree with the examiner’s reasoning. Pomerhn discloses the
production of asbestos-containing cement sheets in a process in which a cationic
polyacrylamide retention aid and an anionic polyacrylamide flocculating aid are added to
a cementitious mixture before it is formed into sheets. Column 2, line 37, through
column 3, line 2. As discussed supra, Pomerhn uses “[s]ufficient water as required in
the well-known cylinder method of wet forming.” Column 1, lines 66-68; column 3, lines
49-51.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013