Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

377 F.2d 607

Docket Patent Appeal No. 7749.

In re Herrick

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · decided 1967-05-04

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1967

2 counsel of record

Applies 35 U.S.C. § 103

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-05-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶154 CCPA

¶2Smith, J., dissented.

¶3Charles N. Shane, Jr., Washington, D'.. C., for appellants.

¶4Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D. C.,. of counsel), for the Commissioner of’ Patents.

¶5Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH,. SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and. WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.*

¶8WORLEY, Chief Judge.

¶9This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 in appellants’ application 1 for “Adhesive Composition.”

¶10The invention relates to a resorcinolformaldehyde cold-setting adhesive resin base 2 in which %-% of the usual. *608amount of relatively expensive resorcinol is said to be “replaced” by an extract from quebracho wood. According to appellants, the quebracho can be used without adversely affecting the “cure-time,” “pot life," “spreadability,” “strength” and “water-resistance” of the adhesive mixture. After mixing with a hardener, e. g., paraformaldehyde, and filler material, appellants' particular adhesive base, as reflected in claim 1, finds use in plywood manufacture:

¶111. An adhesive base for a cold-setting adhesive comprising a resorcinolformaldehyde condensate in which the mole ratio of formaldehyde to resorcinol is from 0.5 to 0.8 and an aqueous extract of quebracho, the extract of quebracho being present in an amount by weight equal to at least one-third the amount of resorcinol by weight.

¶12The references are:

Spahr 2,490,927 Dec. 13, 1949.
British Patent 723,884 Feb. 16, 1955.
Adams et al. — “Absorptive Properties of Synthetic Resins” Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry Transaction, Volume 54 (1935) pages IT and 2T.
Delmonte — “Technology of Adhesives” — published by Reinhold Publishing Corp. 1947 — pages 22-31.

¶13The examiner rejected claims 1-9 as “unpatentable over British taken with Spahr,” presumably under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

¶14British discloses preparation of phenol-formaldehyde adhesive resins for use in plywood manufacture. The patentee first prepares a stable phenol-formaldehyde condensation product, then adds a quebracho tannin extract in amounts ranging from 10-100 parts quebracho solids for each 100 parts solid phenol-formaldehyde resin. Amounts of filler and “accelerators of hardening,” such as paraformaldehyde, are also included in the adhesive. A plywood bonded with the resin modified with quebracho extract, tested when dry or wet, is said to give

higher bond strengths than unmodified phenol-formaldehyde adhesives when cured for the same length of time, or alternatively, give in a much shorter curing time bond strengths equal to those obtained with unmodified phenol-formaldehyde adhesives.

¶15Spahr discloses resorcinol-formaldehyde adhesive bases in which the mole ratio of formaldehyde to resorcinol ranges from 0.5 to 0.73. Shortly prior to use in laminating wood, paraformaldehyde is added to effect curing of that adhesive base. Spahr points out, as does the Delmonte background reference, that curing of resorcinol-formaldehyde resins occurs at room temperature, in contrast to the sometimes impractical elevated temperatures required to cure phenol-formaldehyde resins.

¶16Adams was also relied on by the examiner as background art. It discloses that quebracho tannin, like phenol, resorcinol and catechol, was known to react with formaldehyde to produce a resin material.3

¶17*609The examiner was of the view that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a resorcinol-formaldehyde condensate, as disclosed by Spahr, in place of the phenol-formaldehyde condensate material of British in order to obtain, as expected, a “cold-setting” adhesive. The board agreed, as do we.

¶18Appellant contends here, as below, that the quebracho extract employed by British is used “exclusively as an accelerator” for the curing of the phenol-formaldehyde, and that it would not be obvious that it could be used in place of some of the resorcinol in resorcinol-formaldehyde adhesives. We would observe that the use of the term “accelerator” to describe the allegedly sole purpose and action of quebracho in British originates with appellant, not with that reference. As the examiner pointed out:

While the presence of this material speeds up the curing of the phenol-aldehyde condensate it is not likely that the sole function of 100 parts of the quebracho per 100 parts of the phenol aldehyde condensate was an accelerator. Note also that British teaches that paraformaldehyde is added to the composition as an accelerator for hardening .

¶19That quebracho does react with formaldehyde to produce resins is clear from Adams. In so reacting, quebracho serves to increase the wet or dry strength (while having no apparent effect on adhesive properties) of phenol-formaldehyde resins in which it is placed in comparison to unmodified resins cured for the same length of time, as demonstrated by British. Insofar as the record shows, one skilled in the art would not expect quebracho to adversely affect the “cure-time,” “pot life,” “spreadability,” strength” and “water-resistance” of resorcinol-formaldehyde adhesives. Whether the claimed subject matter be thought of as reflecting replacement of resorcinol by quebracho as appellants allege, or simply as addition of quebracho to a resorcinol-formaldehyde resin base with concomitant necessity of adding further paraformaldehyde hardener for curing purposes,4 we think the references would make the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. ti

¶20Our review of the record, with due regard for appellants’ arguments, satisfies us that no reversible error appears in the decision below, and it is affirmed.

¶21Affirmed.

¶25SMITH, Judge

¶26(dissenting).

¶27Appellants’ brief states:

This invention is based on the discovery that material extracted from quebracho wood with water or with aqueous alkali solutions of hydroxides and carbonates of sodium, potassium and ammonia, can be incorporated in the resorcinol-formaldehyde adhesive base solution to thereby displace from one-third to two-thirds of the relatively expensive resorcinol.
In other words, appellants’ contribution to the art is their discovery that extracts of quebracho wood can be used to replace one-third to two-thirds of the costly resorcinol component of a conventional cold-setting resorcinolformaldehyde resin and yet not adversely affect the “pot life”, “cure-time”, “spreadability”, “strength”, and “water-resistance” of the adhesive mixture. Appellants’ further contribution is that the addition of this quebracho extract to a conventional resorcinol-formaldehyde condensation *610base lessens the need for careful control of the viscosity of the adhesive base so as not to unduly increase the “pot life” of the adhesive.

¶28*609ti

¶29*610I do not find the majority opinion to be convincing on this issue. Appellants’ invention appears to me to contribute the foregoing advance in this art and I do not find it to be obvious in view of the prior art of record. Therefore, it seems to me the decision of the board should be reversed.

/377/f2d/607 · .json · Public domain