Appeal No. 96-3482
Application 08/155,010
would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one
of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Rinehart, 531
F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)). It is our view
that the examiner has failed to do so with regard to either of
the Section 103 rejections, and we therefore will not sustain
them. Our reasoning follows.
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, that the appellants’ inventive
harness for securing a building against damaging winds comprise
“a first sheet of coarsely woven or knitted fabric having a shade
or porosity” (emphasis added), in which the ratio of surface area
of the opaque threads to the total surface area of the fabric,
including the interstice between the threads, “be of 60% to 75%,
such that air will pass readily through the fabric.” The purpose
of this construction, as understood from the specification, is to
allow the wind to provide sufficient force upon the fabric on the
windward side of the building to press the strap-like elements
which extend over the roof in tension against the roof, while
causing a minimum of additional reduction of pressure upon the
leeward side of the building so as to minimize lift there, which
is undesirable (page 13).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007