Appeal No. 97-3983
Application 08/506,851
examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
provide for a portion of the Smith receptor or funnel 20 to be absent in the manner of
Coffman’s recess 130 to accommodate a user. Instead, the appellant contends that the
provision of such a recess or depression in the Smith funnel would not meet the limitations
in these claims (see page 7 in the brief). This position is not well taken. Suffice it to say
that the provision of a recess or depression in Smith’s receptor means or funnel 20 would
result in the funnel wall being absent as recited in claim 18, the discharge outlet of the
funnel being remote from the absent wall as recited in claim 19, and the wall of the funnel
being substantially U-shaped in plan view as recited in claim 20.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 9 through 20 is
affirmed with respect to claims 9 through 11 and 13 through 20 and reversed with respect
to claim 12.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007