Appeal No. 2000-0027 Page 9
Application No. 09/072,190
We sustain the rejection of claims 12 to 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, but not the rejection of claims 1 to 11.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a case of obviousness.
See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993). A case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the relevant teachings of the references
to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 5 to 7
Claim 5 recites a method of manufacturing and applying a
pavement and patch material mixture comprising, inter alia,
(a) reducing sticky abrasive roof waste to roof waste granules
of a size on average of up to one inch; (b) mixing superheated
aggregate to the shingle granules; (c) mixing rejuvenating oil
to the granules and aggregate; (d) mixing an emulsifier to the
rejuvenating oil, granules and aggregate; (e) mixing asphalt
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007