Appeal No. 96-3745
Application 08/269,916
apparent that “said cover plate” (claim 12, lines 5 and 6) and
the earlier recited “a cap plate” (claim 12, line 3) address
the same component. As to the asserted confusion between “a
cap plate” (claim 12, line 3) and the “cover” of claim 1, we
understand the specified cap plate as a component of the
cover. In light of the above, we determine that the metes and
bounds of appellant’s invention are determinable,
notwithstanding claim informalities therein.5
The obviousness issue
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 1 is drawn to a ventilating device for a roof
having a longitudinally extending ridge member supported by
transversely spaced inclined rafters, with a vent opening in
the roof extending longitudinally along the ridge member, the
It is expected that the noted informalities will be rectified during5
any further prosecution before the examiner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007