Appeal No. 1998-2129 Page 8
Application No. 08/561,816
examiner has not convincingly established how the teachings of
Meeker (column 1, lines 20-23 and 45-68) with respect to
forming a hardened resin permeated portion in a fibrous
product for holding an insert for a screw fastening device
coupled with the teachings of Zerfass (column 2, lines 3-16)
regarding the formation of a particular support web for
roofing membranes that is reported as having good nail pull
out resistance would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to effect a modification in the support web product of Zerfass
so as to arrive at the claimed product including nail tabs.
On this record, we reverse the stated rejection over the
combined teachings of those references.
Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
We note that in obviousness-type double patenting
rejections, the analysis employed parallels the guidelines for
analysis of a § 103 obviousness determination. See In re
Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Accordingly, the question this appeal presents
requires us to decide whether claims 1-7 on appeal herein
encompass a roofing material product containing a plurality of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007