Appeal No. 97-2822
Application 08/455,900
filed shows the drain cover plate (32) positioned directly on the
upper surface of the extension ring (10) and the specification
expressly describes this particular arrangement. See, for
example, page 4, lines 22-25, and page 5, lines 4-6, of the
specification. Thus, we must conclude that the extension ring
now seen in Figure 2 of the drawing correction lacks "written
description" in the application as originally filed.
To summarize our decision, we note that 1) the
examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, has not been sustained, 2) the examiner's
rejection of
claims 10, 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) has been sustained
with regard to claim 11, but not with regard to claims 10 and 16,
3) the rejection of appealed claims 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 relying on Emberson alone has been sustained with
regard to claim 11, but not with regard to claims 10, 13, 14 and
16, 4) the rejection of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
relying on Emberson and Seewack has been sustained with regard to
claim 12, but not with regard to claim 15, and 5) the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Morris
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007