Appeal 2006-3004
Application 10/796,708
1 Appellants contend that the recitation in claim 1 of “said holes” and
2 the recitation in claim 5 of “said at least three said tabs each including holes”
3 are clear and are directed to a single hole in each of the three tabs.
4 Appellants also contend that the placement of a third tab on the
5 Sarkisian rod may cause a tab to extend into the window and that therefore a
6 person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the
7 Sarkisian device so as to have a third tab (Appeal Br. 5). Appellants also
8 contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated
9 to modify the Sarkisian rod so as to have a cover for the flange because in
10 Sarkisian a curtain covers the flange (id.) .
11 ISSUES
12 The first issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
13 erred in holding that the recitations in claim 1 of “said holes” and the
14 recitation in claim 5 of “said at least three said tabs each including holes” are
15 unclear.
16 The second issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
17 erred in holding that it would have been obvious to modify the Sarkisian rod
18 so as to include a flange with three tabs and a cover.
19
20 FINDINGS OF FACT
21 Appellants invented a bathroom support which includes a bar 22
22 having ends 23 and an integrally formed mounting flange (paragraphs 0011
23 to 0012; Figure 1A). The mounting flange includes three tabs 26 which
24 extend radially outwardly. Each tab 26 includes a hole 28 for receiving a
25 threaded fastener (Figure 1A; paragraph 0012).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013