Ex parte SANTOS - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-1092                                                          
          Application 08/412,491                                                      


          depending from a rejected base claim.                                       


               The subject matter on appeal relates to “a three-way                   
          valve for a faucet head” (specification, page 1).  Claim 1 is               
          illustrative and reads as follows:                                          
               1.   A kitchen faucet comprising:                                      
               a)   a kitchen faucet base having an temperature control               
          valve and a hollow member extending therefrom;                              
               b)   an extensible kitchen faucet head, said extensible                
          kitchen faucet head connectable to the kitchen faucet base and              
          including a flexible conduit sized to slide in and out of the               
          hollow member, said flexible conduit connectable to a source                
          of liquid, said extensible kitchen faucet head further                      
          comprising a kitchen faucet body having;                                    
                    i)   a first passageway therein, an inlet of said                 
          first passageway connected to said flexible conduit, said                   
          first passageway diverging into a second and a third                        
          passageway, each of said second and third passageways having                
          an outlet for liquid discharge; and                                         
                    ii) means for blocking flow of said liquid through                
          one of and both of said second and third passageways.                       
               The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of              
          obviousness are:                                                            
          Magnenat et al. (Magnenat)    5,158,234           Oct. 27, 1992             
          Henkin et al. (Henkin)        5,230,106           Jul. 27, 1993             
               Claims 1 and 4 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
          § 103 as being unpatentable over Magnenat in view of Henkin.                
                                         -2-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007