Appeal No. 2002-2047 Page 2
Application No. 09/348,400
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method and apparatus for separating
laundry. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claims 1 and 28, which have been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Rosenfeld 4,036,365 Jul. 19, 1977
Robin et al. (Robin) 5,168,645 Dec. 8, 1992
Heinz et al. (Heinz) 6,089,810 Jul. 18, 2000
(filed Mar. 6, 1998)
Umeda (Japanese Kokai) 56-33315 Apr. 3, 19811
Claims 1-5, 22-24, 28-30, 54, 81-84, 113 and 114 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Robin in view of Umeda and Heinz.
Claims 77-80, 90 and 96 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Robin in view of Umeda, Heinz and Rosenfeld.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 21) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 20) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 23) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
1Our understanding of this foreign language document was obtained from a PTO translation, a
copy of which is enclosed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007