Appeal No. 97-2822
Application 08/455,900
opinion, since in contrast to appellant's first argument the ring
(18) of Emberson clearly provides an "extension" of the drain
body (10) therein, while the arguments numbered 2) and 3) on
page 25 of the brief are directed to limitations not found in
claims 11 and 12 on appeal.
The last of the examiner's rejections for our review is
that of claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 as being unpatentable over Morris
in view of Mayer. Like appellant, we are of the opinion that
Morris and Mayer are not properly combinable in the manner urged
by the examiner. Moreover, even if one were to make the multiple
shim rings (56) of Morris’ Figure 6 into a single shim or annular
ring member, the resulting structure and method would not be that
which is claimed by appellant. The shim rings (56) of Morris
have no upright smooth-wall bolt holes therethrough alignable
with the plurality of drain cover plate mounting holes as
required in independent claims 1, 5 and 9 on appeal, nor any need
for such bolt holes. In addition, and as a result of not having
the above-noted bolt holes, we observe that the annular body of
Morris as modified by the examiner would not be capable of
functioning in the manner required in the last clause of
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007