Appeal 2006-2026
Application 10/300,334
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the
Appellants and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the
Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer respectively for a complete
exposition thereof.
OPINION
Appellants indicate two separate groupings of claims. Grouping I
includes claims 16, 18, and 22. Grouping II includes claims 17 and 19-21.
Appellants indicate that claims 16 and 17 are representative of each of the
groupings, respectively. Accordingly, we choose claims 16 and 17 as
representative claims on which to render our decision.
CLAIM 16
The Examiner rejects claims 16, 18, and 22 under § 103(a) over
Zastawny in view of Burke (Answer 4). The Examiner indicates that
Zastawny discloses all the features of Appellants’ claim 16, except “for the
spout further including a u-shaped portion” (Answer 4). Regarding the term
“faucet” in the preamble of claim 16, the Examiner indicates that such term
does not describe any structure of the claimed assembly that is
distinguishable from Zastawny’s assembly (Answer 4). The Examiner cites
to Burke as showing an analogous pipe coupling assembly which further
includes a spout having a u-shaped portion (Answer 4). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made “to associate a u-shaped portion with the
Zastawny spout in order to provide a change in flow direction” (Answer 5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007