Appeal No. 2006-1325
Application No. 10/163,610
1 at least one utility preinstalled through said
2 housing, said utility being selected from gas,
3 water, telephone, internet, cable television, various
4 wiring and plumbing, and air; and
5 at least one amenity preinstalled to said
6 housing said amenity being selected from the
7 group of a stowable desk, an armoire, and a closet.
8
9 The Evidence
10 The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
11 unpatentability:
12 Kelley US 4,685,255 Aug. 11, 1987
13 Brown US 5,321,579 Jun. 14, 1994
14 Douhet US 6,020,914 Feb. 01, 2000
15 Swensson US 6,256,936 B1 Jul. 10, 2001
16
17 The Rejections
18 Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
19 § 102(b) of claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-18, 20-22, 26-28, and 31-34 as being
20 anticipated by Kelley and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 7, 8,
21 19, 25, and 351 as being unpatentable over Kelley in view of Swensson,
22 claims 12, 13, and 29 as being unpatentable over Kelley in view of Brown,
1 Appellants originally complained that the Examiner’s grouping of claim
35 with the claims rejected as unpatentable over Kelley in view of Swensson
in the Answer was an improper new ground of rejection and requested
reopening of prosecution (Reply 1) but ultimately requested reinstatement of
the appeal (Response filed February 28, 2006).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013