Page 4
Appeal No. 2004-1298
Application No. 09/875,074
When installed, the vent spaces a cap [22] (such as a ridge cap)
from the roof surface to provide a venting flow path for air between the
interior of the building and the ambient atmosphere [column 2, lines 32
through 52].
As conceded by the examiner (see pages 2 and 6 in the final rejection), the roof
vent disclosed by Coulton ‘521 does not respond to the limitations in independent claim
1, or the corresponding limitations in independent claims 7 and 20, requiring first and
second offset sets of hollow spacer elements projecting outwardly from the front and
rear faces, respectively, of the web. The Coulton vent has but a single set of hollow
spacer elements projecting outwardly from one face of its web. To overcome this
deficiency, the examiner turns to Brodeur.
Brodeur discloses an earth drain adapted to be vertically driven into the ground
to a substantial depth to foster drainage of soils, such as clay, having low water
permeability. The drain 10 comprises a core 11 composed of a flat flexible web 12
having an array of solid projections 13 extending from both of its sides and a sheet-like
filter 15 encasing the core and spaced from the web by the projections. In use, “when
the drain is inserted in the soil, water may pass through the filter (which prevents the
ingress of soil particles) into the space between the filter and the web so that water may
flow through the drain in the space between the filter and the web” (column 2, lines 38
through 42).
In proposing to combine Coulton ‘521 and Brodeur to reject claims 1, 7 and 20,
the examiner submits that it would have been obvious “to employ a second set of
hollow spacer elements . . . as taught by Brodeur et al. on the rear face of the web
disclosed by . . . Coulton et al. providing the ability for moisture and water to flow on
both sides of the web” (final rejection, page 3 and page 6).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007