Appeal No. 2000-1416
Application No. 09/073,847
teaching. It is for this reason that the rejection cannot be
sustained.
The second rejection
We also do not sustain this second rejection of claim 1
founded upon the Danver, Izzi, Sr., and Izzi disclosures. It
follows that the rejection of remaining claims 4 through 7 and
10 through 12 is likewise not sustained since, as mentioned
earlier, these claims stand or fall with claim 1.
In this rejection, the examiner supplements the Danver
patent with the respective patents to Izzi, Sr. and Izzi that
each depict an irregularly spaced drain hole pattern.
Appellant argues that the additional references do not remedy
the defects of the Danver document. We agree.
Akin to appellant’s point of view, while it can be
visually appreciated that the Izzi, Sr. and Izzi patents
portray the knowledge in the art of drains with irregularly
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007