Appeal No. 2004-0946
Application No. 09/965,150
regarding that rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed November 7, 2003) for the reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No.
14, filed September 22, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 17,
filed January 23, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
rejection will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
The examiner's rejection of claims 10 through 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined teachings of Gellmann
and Holbrook recognizes that the flexible shower line unit of
Gellmann teaches a multiple shower head system (col. 4, lines 66-
71) for retrofit installation on existing shower plumbing,
wherein the multiple shower head system includes a flexible
conduit (28) extending from a valved connector fitting (30)
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007