Appeal No. 97-2019 Page 4
Application No. 08/430,196
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ekman in view of Wakenshaw and Cuthbertson. In the examiner’s
view Ekman teaches all the claimed elements of claim 1 except
for the provision of inlet and plural outlet means. The
examiner cites Wakenshaw for teaching an analogous body
treatment apparatus that includes a tub 18 with inlet means 44
and Cuthbertson for teaching an analogous tub which further
includes dual outlet means 42 and 44. According to the
examiner:
. . . it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to associate
inlet means with the Ekman tubs in order to
facilitate body treatment . . . it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to associate two outlet means
with the Ekman tubs in order to facilitate
water drainage. [examiner’s answer at pages
4 to 5].
Appellant argues that none of the references discloses a
double tub with multiple inlets and outlets. Appellant also
argues that Ekman discloses only one inlet/drain in only one
of the tubs and that Wakenshaw discloses only one tub section.
These arguments are not persuasive because nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007