Appeal No. 2002-0693
Application No. 09/073,686
The References
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
examiner relies upon the following references:
Valaitis et el. (Valaitis) 5,260,111 Nov. 9, 1993
Davis et al. (Davis) 5,468,550 Nov. 21, 1995
The Rejection
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-16, 18-21, 23 and 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Valaitis and
Davis.
The Invention
The present invention on appeal relates to a fire-retardant
roofing sheeting membrane for sloped roofs having an incline of at
least one inch per linear foot (so-called “high slope roofs”).
The membrane is calenderable from a composition as claimed in
claim 1, and has various properties also recited in claim 1.
Discussion
The examiner has found that the sole difference between the
roofing composition of Davis and the instant claims is the absence
of a halohydrocarbon/antimony trioxide flameproofing additive
package. The examiner has further found that the only reasons for
the exclusion of this compound were cost and environmental
considerations. Finally, the examiner has found that Valaitis
teaches it is highly conventional to incorporate flame retardants
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007