Appeal No. 1998-1942 Page 10
Application No. 08/530,254
Additionally, we agree with the appellants' argument
(Brief, pp. 15-17) that certain features recited in the
appellants' claims are not met when the prior art is combined
as proposed by the examiner. The claimed depth dimension of
the gutter member and the floor covering as it relates to the
sealing means recited in claim 23 or the "preventing" step as
recited in claim 41 are not met when the prior art is combined
as proposed by the examiner.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject independent claims 23 and 41 and dependent
claims 24-40 and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed
and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 23-44 under
35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007