Appeal No. 2004-0331
Application No. 09/432,313
§ 1.181 (Paper No. 33) requesting the Commissioner to overrule the
examiner’s objection regarding claims 5-10 and 15-17. In a
Decision on Petition (Paper No. 34), the Technology Center Director
determined upon review of the Examiner’s Answer that “the examiner
has withdrawn the objections” and that “these objections are no
longer being made.” Accordingly, appellant’s petition was
dismissed as moot.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a pan for use with a
commode (claims 1-4 and 12-14)1 and to a splash guard pan (claim
18).
The following prior art references are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Haskins 2,500,544 March 14, 1950
Ross et al. (Ross) 5,343,573 Sept. 6, 1994
In addition, the examiner relied upon appellant’s admitted
prior art (AAPA) as set forth in the “Background of The Invention”
section of the specification at pages 1-3.
1Although the preamble of claim 1 suggests that the claim is
directed to “a pan” per se, a reading of the claim as a whole
makes clear that the claimed subject matter involves both “a pan”
and “a seat” arranged on top of the pan. Accordingly, for
purposes of this appeal, we consider that claims 1-4 and 12-14
are directed to the combination of a pan and a seat. In the
event of further prosecution, this apparent claim inconsistency
is deserving of correction.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007