Appeal 2006-2589
Application 10/618,499
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1-15, 17-34, 37-
39, and 41 as lacking an adequate written description for the subject
matter presently claimed.
II. Claims 1-15, 17-34, 37-39, and 41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Diehr in view of Mente.1
The Examiner contends that Diehr discloses articles formed
from lignocellulosic materials impregnated with an organic
polyisocyanate. Diehr discloses suitable lignocellulosic materials
include chipboard, fiberboard, wood and straw. The Examiner
recognized that Diehr did not disclose the moisture content required
by the claimed invention. The Examiner contends that Mente
describes lignocellulosic articles containing a moisture content of 2-
15% by weight (Answer 4). Mente discloses that in order for the
binder to function efficiently the moisture content of the
lignocellulosic material should be maintained within this range (col.
4, ll. 33-41). The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a
lignocellulosic material having the moisture content less than 2% in
forming the articles of Diehr (Answer 4).
1 For this ground of rejection, Appellants have grouped the
arguments for claims 1-15 separately from the arguments for claims
17-34, 37-39, and 41. We select claims 1 and 41 as representative of
the respective groups.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013