Appeal No. 2003-0666 Page 8
Application No. 08/891,351
independent claim 1 or, it follows, in dependent claim 4, and therefore we will not
sustain this rejection.
Claims 1-4 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Wise, AAPA and Alker.
The deficiency discussed above in the combination of Wise and AAPA is not, in our
view, alleviated by Alker. This additional reference discloses a system in which the
same components can be arranged to form either a direct connection or an indirect
connection from the two bathtub drains to a P-trap, which apparently is why the
examiner applied it. However, while in Alker two 90° ells, a tee and an adaptor bushing
are utilized, both ells and the tee have one attachment bell that is larger than the other
bells in order to accommodate the larger openings in the bathtub drains. Therefore, in
this regard Alker is no different than Wise and, as was the case in Wise, the adaptor
bushing does not have an external surface sized and shaped to be secured to either of
the attachment bells of the ells and the tee, as is required by claim 1. The rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 is not sustained.
Izzi is added to either of the above combinations of references to reject claims 5-
8. Izzi is applied for teaching providing a raised rib on the adaptor of a plumbing drain
pipe to interface with a seal. Be that as it may, Izzi fails to overcome the problems
explained above with regard to claim 1, and therefore neither of the rejections of claims
5-8 is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007