Appeal No. 1998-1778 Page 12
Application No. 08/521,358
We agree with the appellants' arguments that the combined
teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., Terve, Olin, Kenway,
Stroby, Badger and Raupuk) would not have suggested the
subject matter of claim 25 to one of ordinary skill in the
art. Claim 25 requires both (1) an operational unit
containing an electrically operated device and electrical
components for controlling supply of operating current to the
electrically operated device to be sealed against humidity and
exposed for operation by a person in the toilet compartment
and otherwise protected against unauthorized human access; and
(2) a delay device wherein the closing of a rinse water supply
valve is delayed slightly relative to the closing of a sewer
valve. However, these limitations are not suggested by the
applied prior art. Once again, it is our view that the only
possible suggestion for combining the applied prior art in the
manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitations stems from impermissible hindsight knowledge
derived from the appellants' own disclosure. It follows that
we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 25.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007