Appeal 2007-1675
Application 10/158,708
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 14-25, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schulz and Wimmer.
2. Claims 27, 28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Schulz, Wimmer, and Sauter1.
3. Claims 1, 14, 16, 29, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Bortz and Wimmer.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
The combination of Schulz and Wimmer:
Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 14-25, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schulz and Wimmer.
Claim 1 is drawn to a polymeric plumbing fixture having a desired
configuration. Claims 6, 10, 11, 14-25, and 29 depend from claim 1.
According to Appellant’s Specification, the fixture may be a sink, lavatory
or tub (Specification 1: ¶ 0001). The claimed fixture comprises three
elements: (1) a continuous polymeric shell, having a predetermined shape,
size and underside; (2) a continuous polymeric cap; and (3) an intermediate
layer comprising a cross-linkable polyester resin, a cross-linking agent and
chopped fibrous filler.
1 The Examiner’s statement of the rejection reads “[c]laims 27, 28 and 30
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the modified
Schulz, Jr. (as discussed supra) in view of Sauter et al. . .” (Answer 6). We
interpret the Examiner’s statement of the rejection to mean that it is the
combination of Schulz, Wimmer and Sauter that is relied upon. This
interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s understanding of the rejection
(Br. 11-12).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013