Appeal Number: 2006-2098 Application Number: 10/315,817 Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of Harman. Claims 3 to 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of Harman and further in view of Hansberry, Jr. Claims 3 to 5 contain the same limitation regarding drainage as in claims 1 and 2 above, and we find the examiner’s arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons as in claims 1 and 2. Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 3 to 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of Harman and further in view of Hansberry, Jr. CONCLUSION To summarize, • The rejection of claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of Harman is not sustained. • The rejection of claims 3 to 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mekler in view of Harman and further in view of Hansberry, Jr is not sustained. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007