Appeal 2006-2827
Application 09/883,893
DISSENTING OPINION
William F. Pate, III, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
As I understand it, my colleagues are reversing based on the rationale that
“[n]either Yates nor Wilson provides any reason for mounting a combination tissue
dispenser and disposal in a shower.” My response is that Wilson does not provide a
reason, he just does it. Wilson mounts a tissue dispenser in a shower.
In my colleague’s Findings of Fact, they emphasize the alternative uses of
Wilson quoting from col. 2, ll. 35-39. They state that Wilson discloses “a
multifunctional device which may be utilized either to provide a water-resistant
closure for soap used in the bathtub or shower or in the bathroom as a bathroom
tissue cover to provide a water resistant closure for the bathroom environment.”
See Finding of Fact 4.
In fact, the first full sentence of Wilson states, “[t]he present invention
pertains to a water-resistant multifunctional bathroom fixture which may be
utilized as either or for both providing a water-resistant soap dish holder or as a
bathroom tissue fixture which prevents water spray from interfering with soap or
bathroom tissue located in the bathroom”(emphasis supplied). Accordingly,
Wilson is at least suggestive of mounting a tissue holder in a shower. Perhaps
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013