Appeal No. 2006-1392
Application No. 10/619,609
3 and 4. According to the examiner (e.g., the Answer 3), these
references do not teach “one or more layers coated on a glass
fiber side of the carrier.”
To remedy this and other deficiencies, the examiner relies
on the disclosure of Hiers ‘622. However, as correctly pointed
out by the appellant (the Brief, page 6), Hiers ‘622 is directed
to “thermal and acoustical insulating laminates designed
primarily for automotive uses…” rather than for roofing or
sealing uses. See also Hiers ‘622, column 1, lines 4-45. The
examiner has not adequately explained why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to employ one or more additional
coating from the laminates taught by Hiers ‘622 on the glass
fiber side of Greiser’s or Baravian’s roofing or sealing
laminate. See the Answer in its entirety. Thus, we concur with
the appellant that the examiner has not demonstrated that one of
ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve the roofing or
sealing sheets would look to the laminates of Hiers ‘622 to coat
one or more layers on the glass fiber side thereof.
Accordingly, we reverse the § 103 rejections and the
obviousness double patenting rejection as proposed by the
examiner and recommend consideration of the following matters.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007