Appeal No. 97-2019 Page 5
Application No. 08/430,196
when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior
art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant further argues that Wakenshaw includes one
inlet and one outlet for circulating water and does not
suggest multiple inlets. Appellant is not persuasive.
Wakenshaw clearly discloses multiple inlets 44 to the tub (see
col. 4, lines 36 to 39).
Appellant also argues that Cuthbertson doesn’t have
separate outlets because there is a pipe which is connected to
each outlet. This argument is not persuasive because it is
not commensurate with the actual scope of claim 1 which does
not recite “separate” outlets. Rather, claim 1 recites “first
outlet means for draining fluid from said first tub, and
second outlet meant for draining fluid from said second tub.”
Cuthbertson discloses a first outlet means 44 which drains
fluid from a first tub and a second outlet means 42 for
draining fluid from a second tub.
Appellant also argues that none of the cited references
discloses a tub which is rotatable between a position in which
the person in the tub is in a sitting position and a position
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007