Appeal No. 1998-3296 Page 6
Application No. 08/681,857
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Rejections (1) and (2)
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 through 8,
11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Raeder in view of Harmony. Likewise, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Raeder in view of Harmony and Eder.
It is our opinion that even if the bathtub of Raeder were
provided with a backrest as taught by Harmony's backrest 60
and ridges as taught by Eder's ridges 24, one would not have
arrived at the claimed invention. In that regard, we agree
with the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 6-7) that the
claimed broad, planar, unobstructed platform portion capable
of comfortably supporting the buttocks of the bather when
seated thereon as recited in independent claims 8 and 11 is
not readable on terminal portion 11 of Raeder's bathtub 3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007