Appeal 2006-3025
Application 10/714,110
ORDER
The rejection of claims 2, 8-10, and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bashark in combination with Smith is reversed.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
While we have not sustained the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 8-
10, and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons stated above, it
appears to us that the Examiner should: (a) evaluate the propriety of a
possible rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Morey et al, US
3,114,253 (see Bashark, col. 1, ll. 54-59) either alone or in combination with
the prior art dishwashers or inventive dishwasher controls referred to in
Bashark and (b) determine whether an operator manual rinse of dishes (for
example, using a water spray from a faucet) prior to selection of a pre-
programmed operating cycle is a known prior art dishwashing method
involving a determination of the solubility of soil on the dishes to be cleaned
and, if so, whether such would form a basis for introducing a rejection of
any of the appealed claims.
The Application is further remanded to the Examiner to consider
unambiguously reintroducing any obviousness-type double patenting
grounds of rejection that may still be considered applicable and, if so
reintroduced, to fully explain the Examiner’s position with respect thereto,
including furnishing a detailed analysis of how the subject matter of any
rejected claims differ, in an obvious manner only, from the subject matter of
any claim(s) of another application or patent that forms a basis for such
rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013