Appeal No. 96-3745
Application 08/269,916
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We certainly understand the examiner’s point of view as
regards the presence of informalities in the claims. However,
we
do not view the specified informalities as being of such
character as to prevent the claimed subject matter from being
understood, when read in light of the underlying disclosure.
More specifically, while “said ridge board” (claim 1, lines 3
and 9) is inconsistent with the earlier recited “ridge member”
(claim 1, line 1), it is apparent that these recitations
address the same disclosed element. Further, read in light of
the underlying disclosure, it is apparent that the content of
claim 12 further defines the earlier recited “vent parts” of
the cover (claim 1, line 5). While inconsistent, it is also
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007