Appeal No. 98-0059
Application No. 08/540,548
sealant meets the adhesive requirement of the claim also
(Answer, page 4).
We cannot subscribe to the examiner’s reasoning. Claim 1
requires that there be a “sealing, watertight adhesive” for
“sealably mounting” the vertical portions of the overlapping
cards together to form a “substantially watertight seal
therebetween.” As far as the primary references are
concerned, Prestidge discloses neither an adhesive nor a
sealant, so it lacks an element having either of the required
properties, and Hartman discloses only an adhesive, because
no sealing is required, and therefore it lacks one of the
required properties. The secondary reference, Damron,
discloses a sealant with no adhesive properties, for no
adhesive is necessary. Moreover, none of the applied
references recognizes the problem to which the appellant has
directed his inventive efforts. Thus, from our perspective,
applying the teachings of Damon to either of the primary
references would, at best, result in the application of a bead
of sealant to the upper edge of the flashing, rather than the
application of a sealing watertight adhesive between the
vertical portions of adjacent overlapping flashing cards.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007