Appeal No. 97-1777
Application 08/328,708
through 4 and 7 as being anticipated by Aarons.
The appellants’ sole argument with respect to the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 as being anticipated by Wigington is that “[n]othing in
Wigington teaches or describes the unique gutter saver of the present invention that does
not abut the gutter nor does it require placement within the gutter. Thus, Wigington lacks
crucial elements of the present invention” (main brief, page 8). This argument is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate with the actual scope of the rejected claims,
none of which excludes the recited apparatus from abutting or being placed in a gutter.
Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 4,
7 and 8 as being anticipated by Wigington.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 5 and 6 as
being unpatentable over Aarons or Wigington.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and requires the rear bar to be fitted with fasteners
for connecting the apparatus to a fascia board or a rafter end under a roof of a building.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and requires multiple holes to be positioned in the rear bar
for receiving nails or bolts for fastening the apparatus to the fascia board
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007