Ex parte ALLES - Page 2




                 Appeal No. 1996-1561                                                                                     Page 2                        
                 Application No. 08/230,075                                                                                                             


                 flexible tube which supplies water to fill the bowl.  The                                                                              
                 claims on appeal have been reproduced in an appendix to the                                                                            
                 Brief.                                                                                                                                 


                                                         THE APPLIED REFERENCES                                                                         
                 Baird                      928,237                                                                 Jul. 20,                            
                 1909                                                                                                                                   
                 Preston                                      3,744,064                                             Jul. 10,                            
                 1973                                                                                                                                   


                                                                 THE REJECTION                                                                          
                          Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                                                      
                 unpatentable over Preston in view of Baird.1                                                                                           
                          Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full                                                                          
                 commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the                                                                            
                 conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                                                                                
                 appellant regarding the rejection, we make reference to the                                                                            




                          1In the final rejection (Paper No. 9), claims 1-8 were                                                                        
                 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                                                                              
                 Preston in view of Farrar, and claims 1-7 as being                                                                                     
                 unpatentable over Preston in view of Baird.  In the Answer,                                                                            
                 the former rejection was withdrawn, and claim 8 was added to                                                                           
                 the latter one.                                                                                                                        







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007