Appeal No. 2004-0765
Application 09/732,641
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mark.1
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for a complete
exposition of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the appellant
and by the examiner concerning the above-noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the § 102
rejection advanced on this appeal.
We share the examiner’s finding that Mark discloses a
faucet hub and handle assembly which anticipates each of the
independent claims on appeal. In support of his opposing view,
the appellant argues that patentee’s assembly does not satisfy
the here claimed requirements that the assembly be “two piece”
and that the handle include a means for engaging the hub
1 As indicated on page 5 of the Brief, independent claims 1,
7, 12, 13 and 14 have been separately grouped and argued by the
appellant. We shall separately consider, therefore, each of
these independent claims. However, because they have not been
separately grouped and argued, the dependent claims on appeal
will stand or fall with their respective parent independent
claims. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2002).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007