Appeal No. 2000-1622
Application No. 08/752,445
or less than 16 inches, center to center,
depending on desired spacing adjustments in
construction, as explained previously herein.
Therefore, since no distance between consecutive studs is
specified in the claim, and the distance between consecutive
studs is not an invariable quantity, an object such as the
cabinet 50 disclosed by Groeniger has a width which is
"approximately the distance between the consecutive, vertical
studs," as recited in claim 66. Whether Groeniger’s structure
is designed or intended to be placed between studs in a wall
is not germane to the question of anticipation, such being
simply an intended new use for an old product, which does not
make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber,
supra. Claim 66 is anticipated by Groeniger since the claimed
structure "reads on" Groeniger’s disclosed apparatus.
Celeritas Technologies, supra.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to the other
independent claims in which the width of the carrier is
claimed in relation to the stud spacing, i.e., claims 76, 83
and 86.
Appellant further argues that claim 66 distinguishes over
Groeniger in that it recites that the water closet carrier "is
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007