Appeal No. 96-3771
Application 08/127,005
rewritten to include all the subject matter of the claims from
which they depend.
We AFFIRM.
The appellant’s invention pertains to the combination of
an air deflector and a roof ventilator system. Independent
claim 5 is further illustrative of the appealed subject
matter, a copy of which may be found in the appendix to the
supplemental brief.
The references relied on by the examiner are:2
Smith 3,185,070 May 25, 1965
2The examiner’s answer failed to include a listing of the
prior art being relied on as expressly required by the Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1208 (6th ed., Rev. 3,
Jul. 1997). Although the final rejection (to which the answer
refers for a statement of the rejection) sets forth the ground
of rejection as Waggoner in view of Smith, there are two
patents to “Smith” of record, thus leaving doubt as to which
“Smith” patent is being relied on. The appellant, however, on
page 2 of the supplemental brief under the heading of “ISSUES”
states that the principal issue on appeal is whether the
claims on appeal are unpatentable over “U.S. Patent No.
5,022,146 to Waggoner in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,185,070 to
Smith,” and the examiner on page 2 of the answer states that
“[t]he appellant’s statement of the issues in the brief is
correct.” Accordingly, we presume that the “Smith” reference
being relied on is Patent No. 3,185,070.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007