Page 3
Appeal No. 2004-1298
Application No. 09/875,074
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17 and 20 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coulton ‘521 in view of Brodeur.
Claims 3 through 6 and 9 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Coulton ‘521 in view of Brodeur and Rothberg.
Claims 13 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coulton ‘521 in view of Brodeur and the admitted prior art.
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 11) and to the final rejection and
answer (Paper Nos. 5 and 12) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
Coulton ‘521, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a roof vent designed
to enhance the circulation of air in the space between a roof and the underlying ceiling
structure (see column 1, lines 12 through 18). In Coulton’s words,
the present invention provides a roof vent [V], comprising: a continuous,
indeterminate-length rolled web [1] composed of a series of sequentially-
thermoformed integral longitudinal sections of thermoformable material.
Each section has a plurality of incompressible spacer elements [3-6]
projecting in spaced relation from the web for spacing the web from the
roof when installed thereon. The elements are separated from one
another lengthwise along the web to permit the web to be rolled
lengthwise into a spiral roll during manufacture and unrolled lengthwise
during installation. The elements are hollow and integral with the web,
and they have a wall thickness which is thinner than said web as a result
of having been drawn therefrom during thermoforming. Preferably,
screening [9] is interposed among the spacer elements lengthwise of the
web on opposite sides of its longitudinal median to prevent ingress of
foreign objects [e.g., insects, rain, snow and blown objects].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007