Appeal No. 2003-0666 Page 4
Application No. 08/891,351
needed to construct both the indirect and direct configurations, which allows the
installer to manufacture whichever configuration is required on the scene.
Claim 1 recites the invention in the following manner:
A universal drain adaptor kit for use in association with a bath tub
[sic] having a main drain opening and an overflow drain opening, the
universal drain adaptor kit comprising:
a thermoplastic tee fitting having an attachment bell;
an overflow elbow;
a thermoplastic 90° elbow fitting having an attachment bell;
and an adaptor bushing, said adaptor bushing having:
internal interengaging means for receiving and securing a
drain fitting therein,
an external surface sized and shaped to be secured to either
of the attachment bells of said 90° elbow and said tee fitting,
and
a rim sized and shaped to fit around said main drain opening
in said bathtub,
wherein said kit when combined with drainage piping can be
configured to form either a direct or an indirect drainage
attachment for said bathtub.
All of the rejections are under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The test for obviousness is what
the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007