Appeal No. 96-1293
Application 07/998,673
Looking to the examiner's rejection of claims 7, 9 and
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we share the examiner's view that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellant's invention to utilize an elastomeric
membrane sheet type roofing material, as taught in Morton (at
62), as the roofing material in a building structure like that of
Ziegelman, and thus arrive at the subject matter of appellant's
claim 7 on appeal. However, we do not find in the teachings of
Ziegelman, Patena, Paul and Morton any suggestion of the
particular structures defined in appellant's claims 9 and 12 on
appeal. There is simply no teaching or suggestion in these
references of an encapsulating bracket which is "disposed over
the top of a [sic] angled portion [of a roof] in a manner which
encloses a free edge portion of . . . elastomeric membrane sheet
type
roofing material," as in claim 9 on appeal, or of an inverted
V-shaped bracket "which is disposed along the ridge of the roof"
as in claim 12 on appeal. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection
of claim 7 is sustained, but the rejection of claims 9 and 12
under § 103 is not sustained.
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007