Appeal No. 97-0928 Page 2
Application No. 08/353,190
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a roof flashing. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the
appellant's brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is:
Hasty 5,036,636 Aug. 6, 1991
Claims 1, 3 through 11, 14 and 17 through 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hasty.
Claims 2, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasty.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 102(b) and § 103
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
5, mailed November 29, 1995) and the examiner's answer (Paper No.
10, mailed June 25, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007