Appeal No. 98-0605
Application 08/383,191
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)). Moreover, the issue of obvi-
ousness is not only determined by what the references ex-
pressly state, but also is determined by what they would
fairly suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art. See,
e.g., In re Delisle, 406 F.2d 1386, 1389, 160 USPQ 806, 808-09
(CCPA 1969) and In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ
545, 549-50 (CCPA 1969).
Whitman discloses a method and apparatus for renewing or
drying a roof system (column 1, lines 66-68) having a deck 30,
insulation material 25 and a roof covering comprising a rubber
sheath 10 (column 3, lines 54 and 55). To this end, Whitman
provides a housing (elements 100,105 - see Fig. 3), a blower
fan 120 for exhausting substantially all of the air blown
thereby into the roof system between the roof covering and the
insulation, and vents 800A-D. Viewing Figs. 3 and 7, and
taking into consideration the nature of Whitman's method and
apparatus, the artisan would reasonably infer that the roof
covering 10 is sealed to the housing 100,105. The method and
apparatus of Whitman are not "substantially free of conduits
which are internal to the roof system" as claimed. However,
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007