Appeal No. 2005-0461
Application No. 10/171,031
Lotz. Claims 11 and 20 also stand rejected under § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the stated combination of references
further in view of Friedewald.
Appellants group claims 1-12 together for purposes of the
present appeal, and further group claims 13-21 together (see page
4 of principal brief, last paragraph). However, since
independent claims 1 and 8 are directed to different embodiments
of the invention, i.e., claims 1 defines the boss on the side of
the tub whereas claim 8 defines the boss on the frame, we will
consider claims 1-7 separately from claims 8-12. Likewise,
claims 13-16, which define a recess in the tub, will be
considered separately from claims 17-21, which recite a hole on
the frame aligned with a boss on the hinge.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we concur
with appellants that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness for the subject matter defined by
claims 1-7 and 13-16. However, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejections of claims 8-12 and 17-21.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007