Appeal No. 2000-0506
Application 08/979,592
and Cauffman, this combination of the prior art suffers from
the same deficiencies as that discussed above, in that, if the
attachment means and wall mount (10, 16) of Cauffman were to
be “substituted” for the mounting means seen in Drain, Figure
4, as the examiner has urged on page 7 of the answer, the
resulting housing structure would not be the unitary housing
and attachment means disclosed and claimed by appellant or an
equivalent thereof.
It likewise follows that the “providing” step of
appellant’s method claim 18 would not be met by the examiner’s
proposed combinations of the applied prior art references and
that the combination of Von Herrmann (‘013) and Cauffman, or
Drain in view of Von Herrmann (‘954) and Cauffman, would not
“inherently disclose” appellant’s claimed method, as has been
urged by the examiner (answer, page 5).
In the final analysis, it is clear to us from our
evaluation of the applied prior art references that the
examiner has failed to provide an adequate evidential basis to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007