Appeal 2007-0512
Application 10/310,744
A. Statement of the Case
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, and 38–44.2 A subset of the appealed
claims has been rejected for lack of an adequate written description under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The complementary subset of claims has
been rejected as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The claims on appeal cover an apparatus for welding sheets of
thermoplastic roofing material together. The record indicates that a strip of
such material is laid down at one side of the roof. The strip is secured to the
roof by placing a batten bar or a line of stress plates on the strip near the
inner edge. The bar or plates are then nailed or screwed to the roof. A
second strip of material is then laid down parallel to the first and overlapping
the secured line. Heat and pressure are applied to the material in the
overlapping region to weld the two strips together. According to Appellants,
the prior art only provided welds on either side of the secured line, which led
to undesirable bubbles or air pockets over the fastening means.
(Specification at 5.) Appellants seek patent protection for an apparatus that
provides a substantially continuous weld seam from one side of the secured
line across to the other side of the secured line.
The disputed issues involve (1) whether the subject matter of certain
claims on appeal is anticipated by the prior art; and (2) the meaning of the
term "channel" as it appears in the remainder of Appellants' amended claims.
2 Claims 12–25 are subject to a restriction requirement and have been
withdrawn from consideration.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013