Appeal Number: 2006-2098
Application Number: 10/315,817
Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of Harman.
Claims 3 to 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of
Harman and further in view of Hansberry, Jr.
Claims 3 to 5 contain the same limitation regarding drainage as in claims 1 and 2 above, and
we find the examiner’s arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons as in claims 1 and 2.
Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 3 to 5 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of Harman and further in view of Hansberry, Jr.
CONCLUSION
To summarize,
• The rejection of claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in
view of Harman is not sustained.
• The rejection of claims 3 to 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in
view of Harman and further in view of Hansberry, Jr is not sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007