Appeal No. 96-3771
Application 08/127,005
The examiner’s rejection is explained on page 2 of the
final rejection. The arguments of the appellant and examiner
in support of their respective positions may be found on pages
3-5 of the supplemental brief and pages 3-5 answer.3
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we base our interpretation of
the appealed subject matter upon the following interpretation
of the terminology appearing in the claims. In line 1 of
claim 5 we interpret “[a]n air deflector and roof ventilator
system” to be --a roof ventilator system-- inasmuch as line 2
of this claim further recites that the system comprises “an
air deflector and a roof ventilator” (emphasis ours).
Similarly, in line 1 of claims 2-4 and 11 we interpret “[t]he
air deflector” to be --the roof ventilator system--.
3In passing, we note that page 4 of the supplemental
brief refers to a rejection of “claims 1-19 under § 102(b) and
§ 103 based upon Brown ’549, Orr ’760, Radencic ’582 and
Butzmer ’572.” We observe, however, no such rejection is
before us for consideration.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007