Appeal No. 1998-2173
Application No. 08/829,620
difference between the Bird shingle and the claimed design is
that the “showface is divided into two equal sections of
lighter and darker areas” (final rejection, page 2). The
examiner describes Figure 1 of Olsen as teaching a shingle
having an exposed surface divided into two equal sections of
light and dark areas and takes the position that
[i]t would have been obvious to . . . provide the roofing
element of Bird with a showface that is divided into two
equal sections of lighter and darker areas. (Final
rejection, page 2)
Appellants argue that the shading shown in Figure 1 of
Olsen is not indicative of shingle color or light and dark
areas, but merely illustrates a coating of asphalt and slate
granules applied over the butt end of the shingle.
Based on our review of Olsen, we find appellants’
argument to be well taken. Olsen teaches a shingle
composition comprising a mixture of mica and asphalt. The
shingle is described as having a tapered construction with a
butt end 2 exposed to the weather and a thin end 3. The butt
end may be coated with a layer of asphalt 5 and a layer of
slate granules 6 of desired size and color (page 1, left-hand
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007