Appeal 2007-0106
Application 10/453,932
conclude that the heating step taught by Arkens before curing necessarily
forms some esterification adduct, and Appellants have not demonstrated
otherwise. Consequently, we do not subscribe to Appellants' position that
"[t]he reaction between these separate components [of Arkens] does not take
place until the binder is cured on the substrate" (page 5 of Brief, third para.).
As for Appellants' argument that "[n]owhere does Arkens disclose or even
suggest using an esterification adduct with an acid number above 100
(preferably above 300) as the binder" (id.), it logically follows that the
ultimate curing of both Appellants' and Arkens' composition comprising the
same components will result in the same cured binder.
Also, since Appellants and Arkens react the same components to
form a cured binder for glass fibers, we agree with the Examiner that it
would have been prima facie obvious to form the adduct before or after the
composition is applied to the glass fibers, taking into account the particular
handling properties of the composition before and after partial and full
reaction. In general, it is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in
the art to reverse the order of steps in a known process in the absence of
unexpected results.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the Arkens
reference.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013