Appeal No. 2006-1951 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/392,140
structures is thermal insulation layer 18 (col. 5, lines 1-22).
The body of claim 10 recites in its entirety “a drawn one piece
metal body defining a floor and an upstanding wall extending
peripherally of said floor, and a peripheral metal frame welded
to and extending upwardly from said wall of said body.”
From the above disclosure of Wenning, we find that these
limitations are met, because the shell bottom 15 of Wenning is
drawn one piece metal body 15 having as upstanding wall 17
extending peripherally of the floor 116, and because peripheral
metal frame 14 is welded to and extending upwardly from the wall
17 of the body 15. We additionally find that the inner or outer
housing of Wenning, is capable of being used as a sink, to the
same extent as is the sink of claim 10 because even though
Wenning does not disclose a drain or water supply, these features
are not recited in appellants’ claim 10. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a
new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product
patentable.”) The claim language is similarly met by outer shell
19, 21 and 23 as advanced by the examiner.
We are not persuaded by appellants assertion (brief, page 3)
that claim 10 is not anticipated because Wenning is non analogous
art. The issue of analogous art is not pertinent to a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We additionally note MPEP § 2131.05 which
recites:
Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is
‘nonanalogous art’. . .is not germane to a rejection under
section 102.” Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417,
424 (Cl. Ct. 1986)(quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007