Appeal No. 2002-0831
Application 08/250,286
appliance. The switches of function table 15 of Toyoshima permit
the system to be used in different (appliance) environments as
claimed. Therefore, we sustain the examiner’s rejection with
respect to claim 35.
With respect to claims 38 and 39, appellants argue that
Toyoshima does not disclose the manually settable switches as
claimed [brief, pages 21-22]. The examiner points to elements 35
and 38 of Toyoshima, and the examiner notes that appellants
disclosed that the switches may have any reasonable number of
switch positions [answer, page 9]. We will sustain the rejection
of claims 38 and 39 because we agree with the examiner that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to broadly use three
switches each having eight positions to select 512 different
operating characteristics in Toyoshima.
With respect to claim 47, appellants argue that there is
no mention of any appliance besides a vacuum cleaner in Toyoshima
[brief, page 22]. The examiner responds that the admitted prior
art indicates that the appliance may be a variety of
conventionally available devices [answer, page 10]. Appellants
respond that the examiner has ignored the limitation of claim 47
[reply brief, pages 16-17]. We will sustain the rejection of
claim 47 because the admitted prior art does teach that motors
-12-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007