Appeal No. 2006-2338 Page 4
Application No. 10/326,449
Rejection of Claims 1, 4 and 5
The appellant argues claims 1, 4 and 5 as a group. As such, we select claim
4 from the group as a representative claim on which to base our decision. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
In the rejection of independent claim 4, the examiner determined that Taylor
discloses a conventional practice of leak testing a bathtub overflow system of the
type including a drain port, an overflow port, and a drain pipe, in which the
overflow port is closed with an expandable plug during the leak testing. Answer,
p. 3. The examiner found that Taylor teaches all the claimed elements except for
the specific type of overflow system having an inverted L-shape. The examiner
relied on the applicant’s admitted prior art that an inverted L-shape is a common
type of overflow system in the bathtub art. Answer, p. 4. The examiner found that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to implement the conventional leak testing practice, as taught
by Taylor, on a common inverted L-shape overflow system, as disclosed by the
applicant, to allow leak testing of the overflow system. Answer, p. 4. In
particular, the examiner determined that “a worker in the bathtub overflow system
art would merely need to follow the teachings of Taylor to arrive at the claimed
invention.” Answer, p. 5.
The appellant contends that the examiner failed to particularly identify any
suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the prior art references such as the
nature of the problem to be solved, the teachings of the prior art or the knowledge
of persons of ordinary skill in the art. Brief, p. 8. We disagree with the appellant’s
position.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007