Appeal No. 98-0605
Application 08/383,191
in discussing the prior art, Whitman states that it is known
to provide "simple ventilating systems that do nothing more
than direct air currents over a portion of the insulation
layer" (column 1, lines 37 and 38). In light of this prior
art teaching, the artisan would have found it obvious as a
matter of "common sense" (see In re Bozek, supra) to omit the
conduits in the method and apparatus of Whitman (where the
size and nature of the roof permits) in order to achieve the
advantage of simplicity as taught by the prior art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Whitman in view of Ohlsson. Whitman does
not teach a heater for heating the quantity of air that is
forced into the roof system. Ohlsson, however, teaches that
in roof ventilating systems the air being circulated should be
heated for the "reason it has a low relative moisture content"
(column 2, lines 15 and 16). Notwithstanding the appellant's
arguments that the teachings of Ohlsson are only applicable to
"new" roof construction as opposed to "renewing" roofs, we are
of the opinion that a combined consideration of Whitman and
Ohlsson would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill
in this art to provide the method and apparatus of Whitman
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007