Appeal No. 2006-1392
Application No. 10/619,609
3) Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Baravian, Hiers '622 and Hiers '876;
4) Claims 6 through 8, 14 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Baravian,
Hiers '622, and Heidel4;
5) Claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Baravian, Hiers '622, and Frank; and
6) Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 15 under the judicially-created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims of 1 through 6 of Greiser in view
of Hiers '876.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. As result of this review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter
under § 103, the examiner relies on Greiser or Baravian to teach
a laminate useful for roofing and sealing. See the Answer, pages
4 Although the statement of rejection set forth by the examiner is confusing
as to which Hiers is relied upon to reject claims 6 through 8, 14 and 33, we
will presume that the examiner is relying on Hiers '622 since the body of the
rejection refers to "Hiers et al".
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007