Appeal No. 2006-1489
Application No. 10/452,059
Jenkins declaration and the exhibits attached thereto, it is the
examiner’s fundamental view that, while a shingle or tile may be
distinguishable in certain specific circumstances from a roofing
laminate (e.g., in the form of a roll), the here claimed “roofing
element of the shingle or tile type” fails to distinguish in all
respects from the roofing elements or laminates disclosed by
Rowe.
Our consideration of the appeal record leads us to the
ultimate determination that the examiner’s argument and evidence
outweigh those of the appellants.
Like the examiner, we appreciate that a shingle (or tile) is
distinguishable from patentee’s roofing laminate when the latter
is packaged in the form of a roll having a 36 inch width and a 60
foot length as described in the paragraph bridging columns 2 and
3. Indeed, the distinction between a shingle and the
aforementioned roll of roofing laminate is pictorially shown on
pages 2-3 in chapter 1 of the Residential Asphalt Roofing Manual
(i.e., Exhibit B of the declaration). Nevertheless, the
appellants’ argument and evidence are deficient in two pivotal
respects. First, appealed claim 1 is unlimited with respect to
the recitation “shingle or tile type” and thus encompasses all of
the shingle types shown on page 2 of the aforenoted Manual as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007