Appeal 2007-1675
Application 10/158,708
27 ultimately depends from and further limits the fixture of claim 1 to a sink
that further comprises a plurality of adjustment rails. Claims 28 and 30
depend from claim 27.
Schulz and Wimmer are relied upon as set forth above. The Examiner
relies on Sauter to teach a plurality of adjustment rails (Answer 6). Sauter,
however, fails to make up for the deficiency in the combination of Schulz
and Wimmer. Specifically, there is no teaching in Schulz, Wimmer, or
Sauter of a fixture comprising a shell and cap that is made from a material
that is capable of being thermoformed, e.g., a thermoplastic.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 27, 28, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schulz, Wimmer,
and Sauter.
Bortz and Wimmer:
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. Claim
1 is discussed above. Claims 14, 16, 29, 31, and 32 depend from claim 1.
According to the Examiner, Bortz teaches a fixture, a tub, that
includes a polymeric shell, polymeric cap and an intermediate layer (Answer
7). The Examiner asserts that both of Bortz’s “cap and shell are molded
from an acrylic polymer (note: polyester resin is a form of acrylic polymers)
. . .” (id.). We disagree with the Examiner’s assertion.
Bortz makes no mention of an acrylic polymer. Instead, Bortz teaches
the use of a polyester resin (Bortz, col. 3, ll. 32-33). As discussed above,
Wimmer teaches that unsaturated polyester resin is a typical example of a
thermosetting material while acrylics are typical thermoplastics (Wimmer,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013