Appeal No. 2004-0331
Application No. 09/432,313
Discussion
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue raised in
this appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claim 1, the teachings of the applied
prior art,3 and the viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which follows.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over AAPA, Rose and Haskins. It follows that
the rejection of claims 2-4, 12-14 and 18 is likewise sustained
since these claims stand or fall with claim 1 as earlier indicated.
Appellant’s claim 1 is directed to a pan having an upper
generally rectangular rim having a front and a rear and an opening
therethrough, the rim having a length and a width with the length
being larger than the width and extending from the front to the
rear, and a seat arranged on the top of the rim and having an
elongated opening which substantially corresponds to the opening in
3In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered the entirety of each prior art disclosure for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the Board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the applied prior art disclosures. See In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007