Appeal 2007-1594
Application 10/600,379
the issue of undue experimentation. The Examiner does not mention any of the so-
called Wands factors. We cannot sustain a rejection based on § 112, first
paragraph, for lack of enablement, based on such cursory treatment.
As noted above in our findings of fact, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-3 as lacking novelty over the Murray reference for two reasons.
In the first place, it is unclear from the Murray reference that the component 42
and 77 that the Examiner has labeled the plug is indeed repositionable with respect
to the tub. Indeed, Figure 2 of Murray appears to show eyelet fitting 46 still
attached to component 42 while submerged in sand. Secondly, we give the
preambular limitation of mountable to a curved surface weight in this claim,
inasmuch as the curved surface is mentioned in the body of the claim with respect
to the base. We believe that the Examiner’s argument that the hull of Murray is
curved in some other location remote from the mounting is unreasonable and thus
beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed subject matter. We
do not sustain the § 103 rejections of the dependent claims 4-10 for the same
reasons.
On the other hand, with respect to claims 11-19, we will affirm the rejections
of theses claims under § 103. Murray shows a base formed with opposing yokes
and a boom swivel device fixable to the base for securing the shaft to the coupling
system. Schroeder teaches a joint which uses a ball washer and a hemispherical
seat in mounting a structure at different angles to the mounting surface. In our
view it would have been obvious to provide the multiple mounting bolts of Murray
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013