Appeal No. 2003-0666 Page 6
Application No. 08/891,351
fittings 17 connected to a vertical pipe 19 from the overflow drain, a vertical pipe
communicating with a P-fitting, and a horizontal pipe 15 communicating with the main
drain. From the drawings, all three of the compression fittings on the tee fitting appear
to be the same size, and the reference does not advise otherwise. The patent
describes fittings 5 and 20, which are attached respectively to the main drain and the
overflow drain, as having a “large expanded mouth 6 [22] and a contracted tubular neck
7 [21]” (page 1, lines 81 and 82; page 2, lines 11 and 12). Thus, while the proximal
ends of fittings 5 and 20 appear to be the same size as the three fittings on the tee, it is
clear from the specification and the drawings that the distal ends, which mate with the
main drain fitting and the overflow drain fitting, are larger. The patentee describes the
connection between the expanded mouth of each bell to the tub in the following
manner: “To adapt the bell for attaching to the bottom of the tub, I provide a sheet metal
bushing 9 [23] which has an annular flange 10 [24] formed substantially at right angles
to the part 9 [23]” (page 1, lines 82-86). As shown in Figure 6, the inner surface of the
expanded bell is threaded onto the outer surface of the bushing, and the outer surface
of the flanged strainer is threaded into the inner surface of the bushing.
The arrangement of the adaptor bushings to the expanded bell of the ells and to
the bathtub drain fittings recited in Wise is the same as is recited in the appellant’s
claim 1. However, the reference does not disclose or teach that the adapter bushing
has “an external surface sized and shaped to be secured to either of the attachment
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007