Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743
Thus, the dispositive question is whether Calio teaches the claimed
programmable controller. For the reasons set forth above, we answer this
question in the affirmative.
Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that Calio and Stdler
would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 14 and 15 obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 13, 17, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Unpatentable over the
Combined Disclosures of Skrovan, Calio, and Aigo.
The Examiner has found (Answer 5), and the Appellant has not
disputed, (Br. 6-8 and Reply Br. 1-3) that:
Skrovan teaches [a] cleaning apparatus, which comprises a
tank for holding [a] cleaning solution, [a] gas feed line with [an]
injection device for forming bubbles in the cleaning solution
(reads on “means for producing a physical action”, as instantly
claimed) and [a] controller, coupled to the gas feed line (see
Abstract; col. 7, lines 34-38; claims 15, 16, 18; Fig. 1, 2). The
cleaning apparatus of Skrovan is quipped with [a] recirculation
unit, which comprises a filter and a system for recharging the
filtered cleaning solution back to the cleaning tank (col. 4, lines
40-64).
The Examiner has acknowledged that Skrovan does not specifically mention
the claimed programmable controller (Answer 5).
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to employ the claimed programmable controller
as the controller of the cleaning apparatus described by Skrovan. On this
record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013