Appeal 2006-2026
Application 10/300,334
Appellants argue that neither Zastawny nor Burke discloses a sanitary
water faucet or a faucet spout assembly (Br. 5). Rather, Appellants contend
that Zastawny discloses a clamp for holding high pressure water pipes
together and Burke discloses a C-shaped pipe leading to a sewer pipe (Br. 5).
Appellants argue that neither of the applied references suggests an assembly
useable with multiple spouts (Br. 5). Citing to Catalina Marketing
International v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d
1781, 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2002), Appellants contend that the preamble language
referring to the interchangeability of the spouts “gives life, meaning and
vitality to the claim” (Br. 5).
Appellants further argue that neither reference discloses a “faucet
spout” (Br. 6). Rather, Appellants contend that Zastawny and Burke
disclose pipes, not spouts for discharging fluid (Br. 6). Appellants conclude
that the Examiner’s finding that Zastawny does teach a faucet with multiple
interchangeable spouts requires an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of
the Zastawny reference (Br. 6).
Moreover, Appellants state that Zastawny teaches the exact opposite
of Appellants’ claimed invention (Br. 6). According to Appellants,
Zastawny discloses a “permanent” pipe coupling connection, in contrast to
Appellants’ assembly that permits separation of parts to accommodate
different spout sizes (Br. 6). Appellants further point out that Zastawny’s
flanges are slipped over the pipes and bolted together such that these flanges
are not “attached” as required by Appellants’ claims (Br. 6). Appellants
determine that these argued differences in structure and function of the
Zastawny device “belie the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 18 and 22”
(Br. 6).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007