Appeal No. 97-1092
Application 08/412,491
in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior
art and of the particular application disclosure as it would
be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill
in the pertinent art. Id. Here, the recitation in
independent claim 1 of a faucet having “an extensible kitchen
faucet head” is inconsistent with the underlying disclosure
which indicates that it is the faucet as a whole, rather than
the faucet head component thereof, which is extensible (see,
for example, Figure 7 and specification pages 2 and 6). This
inconsistency renders the scope of claims 1 and 4 through 14
unclear.
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 4
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed; and
b) new rejections of claims 1 and 4 through 14 are
entered pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007