Appeal No. 97-2822
Application 08/455,900
As for the rejection of claims 12 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on Emberson and Seewack, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of dependent claim 12, but not the rejec-
tion of dependent claim 15. Claim 15 depends from independent
claim 10 and thereby includes all of the limitations of that
independent claim. Thus, since the teachings of Seewack do not
supply that which we have found lacking in Emberson above with
regard to independent claim 10, it follows that the rejection of
dependent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be sustained. As
for dependent claim 12, we note that this claim adds to the floor
drain extension defined in independent claim 11 on appeal that
the groove therein is "a right angled groove." Seewack shows
such a groove in the ring (27) therein for supporting the drain
cover plate or strainer (32). As we noted above in our treatment
of claim 11, Emberson also shows a groove for receiving the drain
cover plate or grate (32) therein, however, that groove has an
angled upwardly disposed wall. Like the examiner, we are of the
view that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to provide the annular ring member (18) of Emberson with
a right angled groove as seen generally in Seewack. Appellant's
arguments on pages 24-25 of the brief do nothing to change our
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007