Appeal No. 2001-0339 Page 2
Application No. 09/250,583
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a device for enhancing bathroom safety and to a
method for doing so. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Pugh 921,734 May 18, 1909
Boschelli 1,618,165 Feb. 22, 1927
Edmands 1,865,459 Jul. 5, 1932
Shiner 2,217,821 Oct. 5, 1940
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14-16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Boschelli in view of Pugh.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Boschelli
in view of Pugh, Shiner and Edmands.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 10) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 9) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
1A rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) was overcome by an amendment
filed after the final rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007