Appeal No. 2006-1124 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/652,112
In this regard we do not agree with the examiner that the Polakoff basin extends to
where L’ is located because a basin is a washbowl or container for holding liquids
(Webster II Dictionary, 1994) and the water container top is at partition b. Rather, in our
view, the basin of Polakoff ends at the partition b. As such the faucet assembly is
supported on the partition b rather than the basin as required by claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we not in agreement with the examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and claims 2, 3 and 5 dependent thereon.
In regard to claim 9, it is our view that the faucet assembly is not attached to the
basin, as required by claim 9, but is rather attached to the partition b. Therefore, we
will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 9 and claims 10 to 14, 16 and 17
dependent thereon.
We consider next the examiner's new ground of rejection of the claim 1 based on
obviousness-type double patenting. We note that appellants have not addressed this
rejection in the reply brief [reply brief, page 5]. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal as
to claim 1. See 37 CFR § 41.39(b)(2).
In summary, the examiner’s rejection of claims 2 to 3, 5, 9 to 14, 16 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is not sustained, the appellants' appeal of claim 1 is dismissed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007