Appeal No. 2004-0534 Page 5
Application No. 10/010,337
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the subject matter of claims 11 and
17 is not anticipated4 by Gardenier. It follows that we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 11 and 17, or claims 12, 14-16 and 18-20 depending therefrom, as being
anticipated by Gardenier.
Mersmann discloses a substantially different type of whirlpool bathtub nozzle
having both a water inlet (suction openings 42) and a suction air inlet (through-bore 21
of hose connecting stub 20). We find nothing in the teachings of Mersmann which
cures the above-noted deficiency of Gardenier. Thus, we also shall not sustain the
rejection of claims 11, 12 and 14-20 as being unpatentable over Gardenier in view of
Mersmann.
4 To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single
prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,
1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc.,
927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007