Appeal No. 1999-1082 Page 5
Application No. 08/813,359
In Figure 1, Kwiatkowski discloses a snow guard that has all of the structure recited
in the appellant’s claim 1, except that it has a single support member rather than the
plurality of members recited in the claim. However, we agree with the examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize more than one support
member, suggestion being found in the self-evident advantages of providing more support
1
for the upright plate, which would have been within the skill of the artisan. With regard to
the requirement in the claim that the there be vents in the bottom surface of the base, we
point out that Kwiatkowski discloses a plurality of downwardly oriented ribs (210) defining
passages that extend inwardly from the edges of the bottom surface of the base and, in
view of the fact that Kwiatkowski teaches that an adhesive (60) can be placed in these
grooves to facilitate attachment of the device to a roof structure, we find ourselves in
agreement with the examiner that they inherently will function as “vents” for allowing gases
to be evacuated during the curing of the adhesive.
It therefore is our opinion that the teachings of Kwiatkowski establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to method claim 17. Initially, we note
that Kwiatkowski teaches installing a plurality of the snow guards on a roof. In addition,
1In an obviousness assessment, skill is presumed on the part of the artisan, rather
than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir.
1985).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007