Ex Parte Noguchi et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-0672                                                        
          Application No. 09/894,704                                                  
          examiner as depending from a rejected claim but otherwise                   
          allowable.                                                                  
               The subject matter on appeal relates to a water shower                 
          apparatus.  With reference to Figures 1-9 of the appellants’                
          drawing,1 the apparatus comprises a main body 1 having a                    
          plurality of arms 11 and a plurality of spray nozzles 8, 9 and              
          14-16.  Further details of this appealed subject matter are set             
          forth in representative independent claims 40 and 56 which read             
          as follows:                                                                 
               40. A water shower apparatus comprising:                               
               a main body positioned behind a back of a bather,                      
               a plurality of arms supported movably on said main body, and           
               a spray nozzle on each of said arms for spraying water,                
               wherein said arms are movable towards and away from each               
          other, and a width of positions where said arms are supported by            
          said main body is narrower than a breadth of shoulders of the               
          bather.                                                                     
               56. A water shower apparatus comprising:                               
               a plurality of arms movable to a showering position and                
          spraying water from a water source,                                         


               1                                                                      
               1 As correctly explained by the examiner on pages 1 and 2 of           
          the answer, the appellants’ “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION” on page 2            
          of the brief incorrectly describes the subject matter on appeal             
          with reference to their Figures 10 et seq. which relate to a                
          nonelected species (e.g., see Paper No. 11).                                
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007