Appeal No. 97-3983
Application 08/506,851
not anticipated by Smith is not persuasive. Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of these claims.
As for the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 9 through 12 and 14 through
20, Coffman discloses a portable cart-like shampoo device for patients confined to a bed
or chair. The device includes a cabinet or housing 12, a pair of water supply tanks 36, a
main shampoo bowl 66, pumps for supplying water from the supply tanks to the main bowl
via faucets 56 and 58 and/or a spray head 64, a drainage water storing tank 50, a drain
pipe 72 connecting the main bowl to the drainage tank, and an ancillary bowl 126
particularly designed for bed-ridden patients. As shown in Figure 5, the ancillary bowl,
which is connectible to the main bowl via a drain tube 140, is semi-circular in outline and
has a neck-receiving recess 130 formed in its sidewall 132.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made “to provide Smith with a waste collection tank such
as taught by Coffman et al at 50" (answer, page 3). The examiner also considers that “to
provide for a portion of the [Smith] receptor [funnel 20] to be absent as set forth at 130 of
Coffman et al would have been obvious in order to accommodate the user” (answer, page
3).
The appellant’s argument with respect to the obviousness rejection of independent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007