Appeal No. 1999-1082 Page 4
Application No. 08/813,359
conclusion of obviousness may be made from common knowledge and common sense of
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular
reference. See In re Bozak, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA
1969).Insofar as the references themselves are concerned, we are bound to consider the
disclosure of each for what it fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art, including not only
the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965,
148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342,
344 (CCPA 1968).
This invention relates to an apparatus and method for preventing large sheets of ice
or snow from sliding or falling from roofs. As manifested in independent claim 1, the snow
guard comprises a base, a plate extending from the top surface of the base, support
members having lower edges integrally attached to the top surface of the base and
integrally attached to the plate, and multiple vents provided in the bottom surface of the
base and extending inward from the side edges of the base. Independent claim 17 sets
forth a method in which multiple snow guards having the structure recited in claim 1 are
adhesively attached to a roof. These claims stand rejected by the examiner as being
unpatentable over Kwiatkowski.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007