Appeal No. 1997-2683
Application No. 08/590,016
494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Here, the language “placeable” and “for
holding” limits the structure. The structure of Shutt is
incapable of being placed along the front edge of the toilet
bowl while functioning to hold the mirror facing the toilet
bowl. In view of the above discussion, it is our
opinion that, since all of the claim limitations are not
present in the disclosure of Shutt, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claim 2
dependent thereon, can not be sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s separate
rejection of claims 1 and 2 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we do not sustain this rejection as well. The
Examiner’s line of reasoning in support of the obvious
rejection is set forth at page 4 of the Answer as follows:
[I]t certainly would have been obvious and/or
within the level of one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the frame (12-18, 20, 26-28 and 30) of
Shutt to be bent in such a manner in order that
said mirror extends in front of the exterior
surface of the toilet bowl in a position facing
the toilet bowl to accommodate for obese people.
Our review of the record in this case, however, reveals a
total lack of evidence to support the Examiner’s position.
- -6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007