Appeal 2006-2774
Application 10/309,493
Erismann. Furthermore, persons skilled in the art would have reason to
prepare fire protection coatings. “[A]rchitectural specifications of steel
based structures now specify the requirement for fire protective coatings to
the steel structural members in order to preserve the integrity of the structure
in the event of fire” (Spec. 1: [0002]). Thus, the skilled worker would have
reason to have modified Erismann’s caulking to meet the industry’s needs
for fire protective coatings.
The scope of and content of the prior art establish that formulating fire
retardant compositions was commensurate with the level of skill in the art.
Each of Erismann (e.g., at [0030]), Liu (e.g., compare differences in the
compositions set forth in Tables I –III at cols. 5-6), and Wainwright provide
evidence that the skilled worker routinely produced fire retardant
compositions by selecting components for their known benefits.
Wainwright also explicitly states that its formula could be used as either a
putty or paint coating (Wainwright, at col. 9, ll. 31-45), indicating that the
same basic formula could be routinely adapted to either need.
Furthermore, McGinnis (US 5,989,706) describes the chemical
reactions between char forming agents, such as pentaerythritol ((a) of claim
1), ammonium phosphate ((c) of claim 1), a blowing agent, such as urea or
chlorinated paraffin ((d) of claim 1), and char reinforcement materials, such
as glass fibers ((b) of claim 1) (McGinnis, at col. 10, l. 20 to col. 11, l. 4),
explaining why components (a), (b), (c), and (d) would typically be present
in fire protective compositions. Thus, the skilled worker understood the
chemistry of intumescent fire retardant compositions and how to produce
them.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013