Appeal No. 2006-1124 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/652,112
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We initially note
that to support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
In support of this rejection, the examiner states:
. . . Polakoff et al. reference discloses a sink (Fig. 6). The sink includes a
basin (D) and a faucet assembly (Fig. 6) having a discharge neck (at H)
coupled to a faucet housing (Fig. 5) that is movably support[ed] on the
basin and selectively rotatable between an upright position and a folded
position (Fig. 6) [ answer at page 3].
We will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 1 because we agree
with the appellants that:
As seen in Figs. 4 and 5 of Polakoff, the faucet assembly F, H, H’ is not
supported on the basin d, but above the basin D on the horizontal partition
b. As seen in Fig. 6, the faucet assembly F, H, H’ is not received within
the basin D (part F and most of H remain above the basin)[brief at page
3].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007