Appeal No. 2000-1416
Application No. 09/073,847
spaced holes therein, these documents simply do not overcome5
the deficiency of the Danver teaching in that they each would
not have been suggestive of the particular size of drain hole
now claimed. For the above reason, the second rejection of
claim 1 cannot be sustained.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
not sustained the rejection of claims 1, 4 through 7, and
10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Danver; and
not sustained the rejection of claims 1, 4 through 7, and
10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Danver in view of Izzi, Sr. and Izzi.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
5It worthy of noting that the Danver drain hole
arrangement (Fig. 2) appears to us to include perimeter holes
that are not each equidistant from some inside holes.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007