Appeal No. 98-3297
Application 08/564,044
only from first having viewed appellants’ disclosure, since
there is nothing in Egli which would have been suggestive to
one of ordinary skill in the art of selecting temperature
gradient as a parameter of interest in controlling automatic
triggering of flushing of a urinal with water. As for the
examiner’s reference in the rejection of claim 3 to Egli
column 1, lines 53-56, and column 4, lines 47-50, we share
appellants’ view as expressed on pages 4 and 5 of the reply
brief.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 3 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Egli.
Having further reviewed the reference to Lissau, relied
upon by the examiner in the § 103 rejection of dependent claim
4, we find nothing therein which provides that which we have
found
above to be lacking in Egli. Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection of claim 4 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Egli in view of Lissau will likewise not be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007