Appeal No. 1997-3264
Application 08/501,769
adjacent shingle while applying mastic under the preceding
shingle (col. 1, lines 20-23; col. 2, lines 52-56).
The examiner argues that the Stebbins and Evans methods
cause tension in the top films by suspending portions of them
above the structure (answer, pages 4-5 and 8). The examiner,
however, provides no basis in fact and/or technical reasoning
in support of this argument. Such fact and/or technical
reasoning would indicate why Stebbins’ layer of softened or
melted bituminous material necessarily is under tension, and
why merely lifting the shingles in the Evans method places the
shingles under tension. Moreover, appellants’ claims require
that the lamination takes place while the sheeted topfilm is
tensioned, and the examiner has not explained why, even if a
raised shingle is under tension, applying mastic below the
raised shingle and then lowering the shingle onto the mastic
meets the claim requirement of simultaneous lamination and
tensioning.
We therefore find that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of anticipation over Stebbins or Evans.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007