Appeal No. 96-3771
Application 08/127,005
66), ventilator 58 and top panel or cover member 60 are formed
of separate pieces which are subsequently installed on the
roof. As the examiner has noted, when these separate pieces
are assembled on the roof, the air deflector of Waggoner is of
necessity “adjusted” in the claimed manner.
As to Waggoner’s use of the terminology “mating,” the
artisan would reasonably infer that Waggoner is simply
referring to the roof ridge ventilator 50 in its assembled
state, i.e., once the separate pieces are assembled together
and fastened to
a roof (just as the appellant’s separate pieces are assembled
together and fastened to a roof).
Insofar as the limitations of representative claim 5 are
concerned, the examiner has apparently additionally relied on
Smith for a teaching of securing the leg member 66 of Waggoner
at a spaced distance from the exterior edge of the ventilator
member 58. This feature, however, is clearly taught by
Waggoner in Fig. 8. In any event, the appellant has presented
no arguments as to why the examiner’s proposed combination of
Waggoner and Smith might be in error.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007