Appeal No. 1997-0569
Application No. 08/150,559
also entirely different than the process or method of
preparing colored roofing granules claimed by appellants.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of method claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Wright, Lewis and the APA. The examiner’s rejections
of dependent claims 3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will also
not be sustained. The examiner’s reliance on Doherty with
regard to claims 5 and 6 on appeal does nothing to account for
the deficiencies we have noted above in the basic combination
of Wright, Lewis and the APA.
Looking to the examiner’s rejection of claims 19 through
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that these claims are also
product-by-process claims and, like claims 7, 9, 11, 12, 13,
15, 17 and 18 above, do not define over the naturally colored
red (e.g., iron oxide) roofing granules disclosed or suggested
in Wright and Lewis or the prior art roofing material
disclosed in Wright that would utilize only such naturally
occurring red (e.g., iron oxide) granules as a surface coating
on a man-made composition substrate. In reaching this
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007