Appeal No. 1998-1714
Application No. 08/441,823
Rejection (4)
Shiino discloses a process for cleaning parts, such as
aluminum cases for electrolytic condensers (translation,
paragraph [0014]), using a detergent solution. In order to
detect any detergent remaining on the parts after cleaning, a
fluorescent material or dye is added to the detergent solution
(id., paragraph [0010]), and then after cleaning, the amount and
location of residual detergent is detected using a UV lamp (id.,
paragraphs [0011] and [0012]). The examiner considers the
methods of claims 1, 3 to 7 and 9 to 12 to have been obvious over
Shiino because (answer, page 11):
One of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that the cleaning method of
[Shiino] would be used in the checking the
fluorescent residual substance in order to
measure the cleaning process. It would have
[been] obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time appellant’s invention was
made to have applied known cleaning method in
the person’s handwashing technique in order
to check the residual of the fluorescent
substance for checking the degree of the
cleaning process.
We do not consider this rejection to be well taken. A
rejection under § 103 must rest on a factual basis, and the PTO
may not, because it may doubt the invention is patentable, resort
to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight basis
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007