Ex parte Oldemeyer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2000

08175376 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte WILHELM OLDEMEYER,
WERNER SANDERS and
GERT TEUBER
_____________
Appeal No. 1996-2979
Application 08/175,376
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, PAK and KRATZ, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 7 through 11 which are all of the claims
remaining in the application.
Appeal No. 1996-2979
Application No. 08/175,376
2
Claim 7 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and reads as follows:
7. A process for the production of fiberboards from
coarse wood particles and isocyanate as binder
comprising:
i) introducing the coarse wood particles and water
vapor under pressure into a pressurized digester
where the particles are softened,
ii) introducing the softened particles into a
pressurized refiner where the particles are
reduced to fine fibers,
iii) introducing the fibers into a blowing pipe,
iv) spraying the isocyanate onto said fibers after
they exit from said blowing pipe and before they
are dried, and
v) passing the so-sprayed fibers to a drier.
According to page 3 of the specification, it is critical
to spray the isocyanate onto the fibers after they leave the
blowing pipe, but before they are dried in a dryer, to avoid
lump formation in the fiber material, precuring of the
isocyanate and size specks formation on the finished
fiberboard.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Betzner et al. (Betzner) 4,407,771 Oct.
4, 1983
Appeal No. 1996-2979
Application No. 08/175,376
3
Harmon et al. (Harmon) 5,093,058 Mar. 3,
1992
Claims 7 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Harmon in view of Betzner.
We reverse.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies on the combined
disclosures of Harmon and Betzner. See Answer, page 3-6,
together with the final Office action dated September 5, 1995,
pages 2-3. According to the examiner, Harmon discloses
essentially the claimed process, except for a pressurized
refiner. See Answer, page 3, together with the final Office
action dated September 5, 1995, pages 2-3. The examiner then
relies on Betzner to establish obviousness of using a
pressurized refiner in the process of Harmon. See Answer,
page 3, together with the final Office action dated September
5, 1995, page 3.
Appellants do not challenge the examiner’s holding of
obviousness regarding the employment of a pressurized refiner
in the refining step described in Harmon. See Brief in its
entirety. However, appellants argue that the applied prior
Appeal No. 1996-2979
Application No. 08/175,376
4
art as a whole would not have suggested spraying an isocyanate
binder onto the fibers after they leave the blowing pipe, but
before they enter a dryer, to avoid both lump formation in the
fiber material and precuring of the isocyanate. See Brief,
page
4. The dispositive question is, therefore, whether it would
have been obvious to spray the isocyanate binder onto the
fibers after they leave the blowing pipe, but before they
enter a dryer (before they are dried). We answer this
question in the negative.
As one of its preferred embodiment, Harmon describes
adding an isocyanate binder to fibers at blow line 16
(corresponding to the claimed blowing pipe). See column 3,
lines 62-67, in conjunction with Figure 1. Although Harmon
does teach adding the isocyanate binder to fibers at other
locations in its process, it limits the other locations to
those locations before the claimed blowing pipe or after the
claimed dryer. See column 4, lines
30-38. Specifically, Harmon states (column 4, lines 30-38):
In general, the binder can be added to
the fibers in any suitable location in
the board forming apparatus
Appeal No. 1996-2979
Application No. 08/175,376
5
upstream of forming mat 41. Alternative
locations where the binder can be
added to the fibers are designated
by dashed arrows (17a-d in FIG. 1. For
example, the binder may be added
using the nozzle assembly of the present
invention in any of the following
locations: refiner 14; blender 30;
bypass chute 32 or forming head
apparatuses 40.
Nowhere does Harmon teach or suggest adding the isocyanate
binders to fibers at the claimed location to obtain the
advantages indicated above. Note also that Betzner teaches
away from using the isocyanate binder at the claimed location
by suggesting the advantage of adding the isocyanate binder to
fibers at the blow line. See column 4, lines 1-14. Thus, we
conclude that the applied prior art as a whole would not have
suggested adding the isocyanate binder to fibers after the
claimed blow line, but before the claimed dryer (before
dried). Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting all of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1996-2979
Application No. 08/175,376
6
)
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CKP:hh
Bayer Corporation
Patent Department
100 Bayer Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15205-9471