Appeal No. 2001-2382 Page 6
Application No. 09/376,461
The first of the Section 103 rejections is that claim 1 would have been obvious
on the basis of DeBlock in view of Hoy and Streiter. It is the examiner’s view that
DeBlock discloses all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 except for the seamless
construction of the flashing and that the flashing be of metal. However, the examiner
opines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
flashing seamless in view of the teachings of Hoy, and further to make it of metal in
view of those of Streiter. The appellant counters by providing several reasons why a
prima facie case of obviousness is lacking (Brief, pages 4 and 5).
DeBlock discloses a skylight assembly comprising a flashing, a transparent
dome engagable with the flashing, and a skylight tube depending from the flashing.
DeBlock is silent as to the material from which the flashing is made. It is our view that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have known2 that leakage between the curb and
flange portions of DeBlock’s skylight flashing would be detrimental to the proper
operation of the device and therefore would have provided that the elements be
attached to one another in such a manner as to prevent leakage at the points of joinder,
that is, that the elements be integral with one another. However, the fact that the
flashing components are integral with one another does not establish that this
attachment occurs without the presence of a seam, for the desired integrity could be
2Skill is presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d
738, 226 USPQ 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007