Appeal No. 2007-0358
Application 10/873,477
11. The device according to claim 10, wherein said control
mechanism is operable to control said spraying device to provide a
more intensive spraying of a respective region in response to the
sensing by said sensor of a condition in the dishwasher indicating that
items in the respective region have a soil condition requiring more
intensive spraying.
The examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of
unpatentability.
Cooper et al. US 5,611,867 Mar. 18, 1997
(Cooper)
Benkert DE 1,403,670 Oct. 24, 1968
(DE ‘670) 2
Appellants acknowledge that DE ‘670 “discloses a dish rack 2-6 and a
plurality of jets 7-10 with each of the jets having a respective magnetic valve 21-24
associated therewith.” (Amended Appeal Brief at 11.) They contend, however,
that “[i]t is not at all clear how [DE ‘670] provides any motivation to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify its jet arrangement to configure the device for
cleaning items to be washed in a dishwasher recited in claim 1 of the present
application.” (Id.) With respect to the rejection of claim 11 over the combined
teachings of DE ‘670 and Cooper, Appellants contend that “Cooper et al provides
no hint of the desirability of controlling a spraying device to provide a more
2 Like the examiner, we rely on the PTO English language translation of DE
‘670 in the record.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013