Appeal 2007-2771
Application 10/418,661
is rolled into a roll to facilitate handling, and (iii) has an effective thickness
and density for protecting the waterproof membrane from puncture by
irregular surfaces on the roof deck; and
wherein the single ply waterproof roofing membrane is not
adhered to the roof deck.
25. The method of claim 19 wherein the waterproof membrane
is not adhered to the roof deck.
26. The roofing method of claim 22 wherein the mat is non-
perforated.
27. The roofing system of claim 23 wherein the mat separates
the roof deck and the single ply membrane such that the roof deck does not
contact the single ply membrane.
The Examiner has rejected claims 3 and 5 through 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to provide written descriptive support for
the presently claimed subject matter in the application disclosure, as
originally filed.
The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting the
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
ISSUES
1. Has the Examiner demonstrated that the negative limitations
“the mat is non-perforated” and “deck does not contact the single ply
membrane” recited in claims 3, and 5 through 22 and/or 26 introduce a new
concept not provided in the application disclosure, as originally filed, in
violation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112?
2. Has the Examiner demonstrated that the negative limitation
“membrane is not adhered to the roof deck” recited in claims 23 through 25
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013