Appeal No. 2006-1172
Application No. 10/313,418
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of
the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for
the reasons stated infra we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
12, 13 and 16 through 20.
On pages 3 through 7 of the brief, appellant argues that the preamble of
claim 1 limits the claim. Specifically, appellant argues that claim 1’s recitation of
“a single mounting unit having at least two different mounting configurations
corresponding to the at least two different overflow plate mounting configurations
of the over flow drain” clearly relates to the recitation in the preamble of “the
overflow drain having one of at least two different configurations to mount an
overflow plate.”
We concur with the appellant. The limitation in the body of claim 1 “the at
least two different overflow plate mounting configurations” has antecedent basis
in the preamble. Thus, we consider the scope of claim 1 to include a single
mounting unit having at least two different mounting configurations each of which
correspond to different overflow plate mounting configurations.
Appellant argues, on page 6 of the answer, that Shrewsbury-Gee does
not show a single mounting unit having at least two different mounting
configurations. Appellant argues that Shrewsbury-Gee teaches two different
overflow drain mounting configurations and a different housing is used for each.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007