Appeal No. 97-2822
Application 08/455,900
bores referred to in appellant's claim 10 are clearly the bolt
holes (20) seen in Figures 3 and 4 of the application drawings.
According to the examiner (answer, pages 4-5), the floor drain of
Emberson includes an annular ring (18) having a lower surface
(adjacent 28), an upper surface (22), an outer surface, an inner
surface, and a pair oppositely located chamfered bores (receiving
24). The examiner urges (answer, page 5) that the "bores [of
Emberson] extend 'from said upper planar surface' (claim 10) in
the same sense as do appellant's bores" (emphasis in original).
After a careful assessment of appellant's claim 10 and
the Emberson reference, we must disagree with the examiner's
determination that the annular ring (18) is fully responsive to
(i.e., anticipatory of) the floor drain extension defined in
appellant's claim 10 on appeal. Having identified the upper
surface (22) of the annular ring (18) in Emberson as the "upper
planar surface" set forth in appellant's claim 10, we do not see
how the examiner can say that the bores located in the radially
disposed leg (20) of the ring in Emberson, which receive the
screws (24), extend "from said upper planar surface" through the
annular ring and extend completely through said lower planar
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007