Appeal 2007-2082
Application 10/795,457
adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. As shown by factual
findings (1) and (4) listed above, we determine that Wada and Hoshino
disclose a method of producing, without a polymerization step, a hardened
molding material comprising adding water to gypsum and PTFE (in an
amount overlapping the claimed range). Therefore, we determine that the
only difference between the methods of Wada and Hoshino and the claimed
method is the order of adding the ingredients. We agree with the Examiner
that changes in the sequence of adding ingredients would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent some evidence of unobvious or
unexpected results (Answer 9 and 12). We determine that the final mixture
of Wada and Hoshino is the same as the claims on appeal, and it would have
been obvious to add the ingredients in any order to achieve this final
mixture. We note that Appellant has not responded to or disputed the
Examiner’s statement that any sequence of adding ingredients would have
been within the ordinary skill in the art.
As shown by factual findings (2) and (3) listed above, we determine
that Morrell teaches embodiments where an aqueous suspension of PTFE is
prepared, and this suspension is then added to the gypsum material (either
dry or with water). Therefore we determine that Morrell clearly teaches and
suggests the claimed method and order of adding the ingredients, including
specific examples directed to 4 wt. % aqueous suspensions of PTFE “to be
added [to the gypsum material or “stone”] as aqueous suspension” (see
Table II, Group (D), 1a).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Wada, Morrell, or Hoshino.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013