Appeal No. 97-2822
Application 08/455,900
the preamble of its parent method claim 5. We note particularly,
that the terminology "floor drain extension" as used in the
preamble of dependent claim 6 is not used anywhere in parent
claim 5 and thus finds no clear antecedent basis therein. Given
the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection
of appellant's claims 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.2
We next look to the examiner's prior art rejections of
the appealed claims, turning first to the rejection of claims 10,
11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Emberson. Independent claim 10 defines a floor drain extension
comprising an annular ring having upper and lower planar
surfaces, a round outer surface bounded by the upper and lower
planar surfaces, and an inner, generally circular surface. In
addition, the floor drain extension of appellant's claim 10 is
said to include "a pair of oppositely located bores extending
through said annular ring from said upper planar surface and
extending completely through said lower planar surface." The
2However, for the reasons which we have indicated above, we
suggest that the examiner consider such a rejection of dependent
claim 6 or, alternatively, merely have appellant provide an
appropriate correction of the preamble of this dependent claim.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007