Appeal 2007-4073
Application 10/739,417
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The field of the invention is compressed air drain opening devices,
3 i.e., plungers for unclogging drains. (Specification, ¶ 2). Applicants’
4 (“Leaphart’s”) specification states that prior art plungers do not provide
5 sufficient pressure on a clog to be effective. (Id. at ¶ 4). Leaphart’s
6 specification also states that prior art piston devices have proven effective
7 but require too many parts and are susceptible to failure. (Id. at ¶ 5).
8 According to Leaphart, there is a long felt desire for a device that unclogs
9 drains that is economical, sanitary and efficient. (Id. at ¶ 7).
10 There is one independent claim on appeal, claim 28. Claim 28 is
11 directed to an air plunger and reads as follows:
12 An air plunger comprising:
13 a first barrel;
14 a second barrel slidably attached to said first barrel;
15 a unidirectional seal slidably engaged with said first barrel;
16 a plunger bell attached to said first barrel; and
17 a ledge for prohibiting said second barrel from disassociating
18 with said first barrel.
19
20 (Br., Claims Appendix, emphasis added).
21
22 The Examiner’s Rejections
23 The Examiner has set forth five (5) prior art rejections. The rejections
24 are as follows:
25
26 i) Claims 28-30, 34 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
27 § 102(e) as anticipated by Leaphart, Jr. et al, U.S. Patent
28 6,862,753 (“Leaphart ‘753”).
29
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013