Appeal No. 1997-0569
Application No. 08/150,559
conclusion, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention to select a known proper size for the
roofing granules of Wright, which size of roofing granules
would fall within the apparently standard size range broadly
set forth in appellants’ claims 19 through 22 on appeal.
Appellants’ specification (page 5, lines 3-10) does at least
imply that the sizing of roofing granules is within the skill
level of one of ordinary skill in the art, and Wright
discloses (col. 1, lines 7-10), or at least suggests, that
roofing granule manufacturers have “properly graded” or sized
roofing granules for many years. Again, we note that the
patentability of a product-by-process claim is based on the
product itself, and such claim is unpatentable over a product
made obvious by the prior art even if the product of the claim
is made by a different process. Thus, absent evidence by
appellants to show that the granules of claims 19 and 21 on
appeal or the roofing material of claims 20 and 22 are in any
way different in kind from the naturally occurring red colored
(e.g., iron oxide) rock roofing granules suggested in Wright
and Lewis or a roofing material as in Wright which would use
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007