Appeal No. 96-3771
Application 08/127,005
As for the limitation on lines 24-30 of claim 5
of the instant application, the examiner takes the
position that the air deflector of Waggoner is
inherently freely adjustable by sliding the air
deflector to the desired position with respect to
the
vent part (58) and it is obvious to one skilled in
the art that the air deflector of Waggoner would be
secured in place at the desired location once the
ventilator is installed on the roof. [Final
rejection, page 3.]
The main thrust of the appellant’s position is that the
base support member of Waggoner cannot be considered
adjustable in the manner claimed. In support of this position
the supplemental brief states that:
Applicant does not believe that support member 56 is
inherently adjustable since the “mating” function
described would not allow the adjustability claimed
by the Examiner while still performing the function
discussed in the quoted language. Claim 5 is
therefore believed allowable over the prior art.
The components of Waggoner ’146 [sic, ’314] are
not adjustable by installers in the field because
the roof ventilator is fabricated as a single unit.
A person of ordinary skill would not consider that
Waggoner ’314 teaches or suggests an adjustable air
deflector. The patent does not talk about
adjustability and it implies that the air deflector
is integral with the roof ventilator. [page 4.]
We are unpersuaded by the appellant’s arguments.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007