Appeal No. 97-2019 Page 7
Application No. 08/430,196
provide different treatments of different portions of the
body. Therefore, we will also sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In regard to claim 3, appellant argues that element 23 of
Ekman is not a cover means but a wall extension. We do not
agree. It is clear from figure 4 that auxiliary member 23
which includes top edge 25 partially encloses a person within
the tub unit. Therefore, we will also sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 4 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ekman, Wakenshaw and Cuthbertson as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johansson.
Appellant has
indicated that claim 4 can be considered with claim 1.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 4 as well.
We turn lastly to the examiner’s rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ekman,
Wakenshaw and Cuthbertson as applied to claim 1 above and
further in view of Jordan. It is the examiner’s view that
. . . Jordan reference which discloses an
analogous bathing apparatus which further
includes cover means 10 having a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007