Appeal 2007-3148
Application 10/638,885
Meyers similarly discloses that the trench drain system 20 (i.e., body)
is composed of trench drain members 24 having a wider base (i.e.,
extensions 56a and 56b) than the upper portion of the trench drain members
24 to better support and stabilize the drain unit once installed in the concrete
(Meyers, col. 4, ll. 41-50). In other words, Meyers’ disclosure that the
trench drain members 24 are wider at their bases than at their upper portions
suggests “tapered” side walls of the trench drain members 24 (i.e., an
upwardly directed and inwardly angled surface) such that the concrete rests
upon the wider base having extensions 56a and 56b to hold the trench drain
member 24 in the concrete.
As such, it appears that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to configure Meyers’ trench drain system 20 (i.e., the body) in
any shape, including the upwardly directed and inwardly angled taper shape
suggested by Meyers, which would aid in providing the intended use,
function and purpose of the form assembly (i.e., preventing removal of the
form from a poured slab of concrete as disclosed by Meyers (col. 4, ll. 41-
50)).
In response to this remand the Examiner must determine and make of
record the results of this determination: (1) the propriety of rejecting claim 7
under § 102(b) over Meyers, and (2) the propriety of rejecting claim 7 under
§ 103(a) over Meyers.
This remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1)
(2006) is not made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly,
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(2)(2006) does not apply.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013