Appeal 2007-0106
Application 10/453,932
Appellants do not set forth a separate argument for any particular
claim on appeal. Accordingly, all of the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claims 1 and 11.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we fully concur with the Examiner that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Arkens, like Appellants, discloses an aqueous binder composition for
making glass fiber products by curing a monomeric polycarboxylic acid
component and a monomeric polyol component while in contact with the
glass fibers. Also like Appellants, Arkens may use acetic acid, butane
tricarboxylic acid and citric acid as the monomeric polycarboxylic acid
component, and 1,4-cyclohexane diol, catechol, diethanolamine, ethylene
glycol, pentaerythritol, sorbitol, triethanolamine and trimethylol propane as
the monomeric polyol component (See Arkens at col. 3, ll. 49 et seq. and col.
6, ll. 1-6). While Appellants contend that Arkens does not disclose
contacting an adduct of the components with the glass fibers, but only the
individual components in composition, the Examiner correctly points out
that Arkens specifically teaches that "the composition may be first heated at
a temperature and for a time sufficient to substantially dry but not
substantially cure the composition and then heated for a second time at a
higher temperature and/or for a longer period of time to effect curing" (col.
8, ll. 51-55). Hence, it is clear to us that Arkens contemplates a partial
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013