Appeal No. 2004-1263
Application No. 09/683,029
whereby tile is laid atop said cementitious material
to complete said shower curb.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Powers 5,092,002 Mar. 3, 1992
Fernandes 6,000,184 Dec. 14, 1999
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Powers in view of Fernandes.
We note that the rejection involving Powers in view of
Presti has been withdrawn. Answer, page 4.
On page 3 of the brief, appellant states that the
claims stand or fall together. We accordingly consider claim 1
in this appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8) (2002).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed appellant’s arguments set
forth on pages 3 through 8 of the brief. For the reasons set
forth in the answer, and below, we affirm the rejection.
We refer to the examiner’s position as set forth on
pages 3 through 4 of the answer. The examiner relies upon
Powers for teaching the apparatus as set forth in appellant’s
claim 1, except for teaching openings in the three-sided frame
12 for receiving a cementitious material in order to bond tiles
laid atop of frame 12.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007