Appeal No. 2003-0666 Page 3
Application No. 08/891,351
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 34) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 31) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 35) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
According to the appellant, depending upon the structure of the building in which
it is installed, the main drain opening and the overflow drain opening of a bathtub are
provided with either an indirect connection to the P-trap or a direct connection thereto.
In an indirect connection, the vertical section of pipe from the overflow drain opening
extends directly to the P-trap and is joined along the way to a horizontal section of pipe
connecting the main drain opening. In a direct connection a vertical pipe extends from
the main drain opening directly to the P-trap, and the vertical pipe from the overflow
drain opening is connected by a horizontal pipe to the pipe from the main drain opening
(see Figures 1 and 2). The appellant’s invention is a kit that contains the fittings
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007