Appeal No. 2001-2382 Page 10
Application No. 09/376,461
Blackmon is directed to a light weight reflector facet for a solar concentrator, and
so it clearly is not within the field of the appellant’s endeavor. The examiner points out
that Blackmon discloses a plurality of reinforcing ribs 40 (Answer, page 4). The fact of
the matter is that the ribs to which the examiner refers are shown in Figure 5 in the
context of constituting a portion of a multi-element frame adhered to the back of a
planar glass mirror 12 so that it is properly supported over its entirety. It is our view that
Blackmon would not logically have commended itself to the attention of an inventor who
is dealing with the problem of constructing a flashing that surrounds the opening in a
roof through which a tubular skylight extends. Blackmon therefore fails to meet either
of the tests necessary to qualify as analogous art and cannot properly be combined with
the other references. This being the case, the rejection of claims 2-4 and 6-9 will not be
sustained.
Moreover, as we concluded above, the subject matter of claim 1 is not rendered
obvious by the combined teachings of DeBlock, Hoy and Streiter, and without a
reference which overcomes the deficiency in combining those three references in such
a manner as to render the subject matter of claim 1 obvious, the rejection of dependent
claims 2-4 also cannot be sustained. We might add that even if Blackmon were
considered to be a proper reference, its teachings would not overcome the problem with
combining the other three references in the manner proposed by the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007