Appeal 2007-3388
Application 11/095,901
from the product claimed. See In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70,
205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980); In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742,
744, 180 USPQ 324, 325-26 (CCPA 1974).1 The Examiner has not
met the burden in this case.
Appellants contend that the subject matter of the independent
claims 1, 16, and 33 describe an article comprising a preformed
substrate of lignocellulosic material that has been subject to
impregnating with a polyisocyanate material after formation (Br. 11,
17, and 20). Appellants argue that Diehr does not teach or suggest
impregnating a preformed substrate of lignocellulosic material that
has an initial structure with an isocyanate resin material (Br. 12).
Diehr describes a process for compression molding
lignocellulosic materials into articles, such as plywood and
fiberboard. The process comprises placing lignocellulose materials,
such as wood chips, straw or hemp, with an organic polyisocyanate
binder in a molding press to produce boards or other molded articles
(Diehr, col. 4, l. 43- col. 5, l. 5).
The product resulting from Diehr’s process is a “preformed”
lignocellulosic material. This product is equivalent to the starting
material used in forming the articles of the claimed invention. The
Examiner does not specifically address the Appellants' repeated
arguments regarding the structural differences that arise from
additional steps of processing used by Appellants over and above the
1 Product by process claims are normally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated or in the alternative under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the cited prior art.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013