Appeal No. 2000-1622
Application No. 08/752,445
of rigid construction substantially independently of the wall
and the waste conduit junction" (brief, pages 36 to 40). This
argument is not well taken. The Groeniger carrier 50 is of
rigid construction, having, like cabinet 10, a framework of
angle irons 12, 14 (page 2, col. 2, lines 10 to 16, and see
Figs. 2 and 3) which is independent of the wall and waste
conduit junction, and rests on the floor (page 1, col. 2,
lines 48 to 51; Fig. 2). Whether or not carrier 50 of3
Groeniger is intended to be connected to the wall or other
structure (which Groeniger does not disclose) is not relevant
to whether the structure recited in the claim reads on
Groeniger.
The discussion in the foregoing paragraph is also
applicable to the other claims on appeal, including claim 82.
Accordingly, rejection (2) will be sustained as to claims
66, 76, 82, 83 and 86, and as to dependent claims 67 and 77,
which appellant has not argued separately from their parent
claims.
3The statement on page 38 of the brief that the angle
irons are part of the wall structure is not understood, since
they are located in Groeniger’s carrier 50, not in the wall
behind it.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007