Appeal 2007-0916
Application 10/051,486
BACKGROUND
A patent issued to appellant (Owens Corning) with twenty claims.
Owens Corning filed a reissue application with significant amendments to
the specification and with twenty-five additional claims. The examiner
rejected all forty-five claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as having been obvious to
a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of
two utility patents (Weaver1 and Corbin2) and a design patent (Hannah3).
ANALYSIS
When considering the merits of an obviousness rejection under
35 U.S.C. 103, the scope and content of the prior art must be determined, the
differences between the prior art and the claims ascertained, and the ordinary
level of skill in the art resolved. Objective evidence of the circumstances
relating to the claimed subject matter (so-called secondary considerations)
may also be relevant. Such secondary considerations guard against the
employment of impermissible hindsight.4
1 C. P. Weaver et al., "Laminated roofing shingle", U.S. Patent 5,666,776
(issued 16 Sep. 1997).
2 R. L. Corbin and R. F. Reinhart, "Asphalt shingle for simulating a tiled
roof", U.S. Patent 4,274,243 (issued 23 June 1981).
3 M. G. Hannah et al., "Tab portion of a shingle", U.S. Des. 336,347 (issued
8 June 1993).
4 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36 (1966). Owens Corning has
not asked the Board to consider any objective evidence of secondary
considerations.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013