Appeal No. 1997-3264 Application 08/501,769 adjacent shingle while applying mastic under the preceding shingle (col. 1, lines 20-23; col. 2, lines 52-56). The examiner argues that the Stebbins and Evans methods cause tension in the top films by suspending portions of them above the structure (answer, pages 4-5 and 8). The examiner, however, provides no basis in fact and/or technical reasoning in support of this argument. Such fact and/or technical reasoning would indicate why Stebbins’ layer of softened or melted bituminous material necessarily is under tension, and why merely lifting the shingles in the Evans method places the shingles under tension. Moreover, appellants’ claims require that the lamination takes place while the sheeted topfilm is tensioned, and the examiner has not explained why, even if a raised shingle is under tension, applying mastic below the raised shingle and then lowering the shingle onto the mastic meets the claim requirement of simultaneous lamination and tensioning. We therefore find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation over Stebbins or Evans. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007