Appeal No. 97-2822
Application 08/455,900
surface, as required in claim 10 on appeal. As is readily
apparent from viewing Figures 1, 2 and 3 of Emberson, the bores
referred to by the examiner for receiving the screws (24) in
Emberson are far removed the "upper planar surface" (22) of the
ring (18). For this reason alone, the examiner's rejection of
independent claim 10 and dependent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Emberson will not be sustained.
Independent claim 11 on appeal is directed to a floor
drain extension like that seen in Figure 2 of the drawing
correction filed by appellant on November 27, 1996 (as an
attachment to Paper No. 24), which drawing correction was
approved for entry by the examiner on December 9, 1996 (Paper No.
25). Claim 11 sets forth that the annular ring of the drain
extension includes a "continuous groove extending completely
around the annular extent of said extension," and "a pair of
oppositely located bores extending through said annular ring from
said upwardly disposed surface of said groove." Like the
examiner, we are of the opinion that the annular ring (18) of
Emberson is fully responsive to the drain extension of
appellant's claim 11 on appeal. In contrast to appellant's
arguments, we consider that the groove for receiving the drain
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007