Appeal No. 97-3983
Application 08/506,851
height” (answer, page 3) rests on an unreasonable interpretation of the claim language in
question.
Finally, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 14 through
20, all of which ultimately depend from claim 13, as being unpatentable over Smith in view
of Coffman.
Claim 14 recites “a flexible discharge outlet tube for connection to receive waste
liquid and to convey it to a mobile compartment for waste water.” The Smith drain tubing
27 constitutes a flexible discharge outlet tube for connection to receive waste liquid.
Smith’s teaching that this drain tubing may communicate with an interim collection site
within the automobile if external disposal of the waste substances is prohibited or
undesirable would have provided the artisan with ample suggestion to connect the tubing
to a waste compartment of the sort disclosed by Coffman, thereby meeting the terms of
claim 14.
Claims 15 and 16 fall with parent claim 14 since the appellant has not challenged
the rejection thereof with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson, supra).
As for claim 17, the appellant’s contention that the “mobile sanitation cart” feature
recited therein is not taught by the applied references is not persuasive for the reasons
discussed above in conjunction with the anticipation rejection of this claim.
With regard to claims 18 through 20, the appellant does not specifically dispute the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007