Appeal No. 98-3297
Application 08/564,044
4), the examiner has urged that “[t]he normal
installation/operation of the Egli urinal would render the
method for triggering a flushing event, as claimed, obvious.”
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Egli in view of Lissau.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 16, mailed
January 26, 1998) for the reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 15, filed
December 16, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed March
30, 1998) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007