Appeal No. 2005-0335 Page 4
Application No. 09/569,645
against the desired portions of the car as the carriage traverses the track. One of the
improvements in Hurst’s apparatus is that, since the carriage does not move in a
continuous encircling path, but rather is halted and reversed by stop means 31 at each
end 27, 28 of the track, swivel structures need not be used for the electrical and liquid
connections, thereby simplifying the structure and enhancing the trouble-free
performance of the apparatus (column 1, lines 68-75). According to Hurst, the
disclosed structure is an improvement over prior carwash devices comprising either a
spray arch which passes longitudinally over the vehicle, wherein carriage overruns were
a problem, or a spray carriage which moves along an oblong track, both of which
experienced problems in achieving effective cleaning action in the more difficult to clean
portions of the car without wasting too much liquid on the more easily cleaned areas
(column 1, lines 48-52).
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious, in view of the teachings
of Hurst, to provide the AAPA printing apparatus with a cantilever liquid spray bar being
reciprocated back and forth on a track via a carriage “so as to achieve greater reliability
and economy of the operation” (answer, page 3). Appellants argue, first, that Hurst is
not analogous art to appellants’ invention and, second, that, even assuming Hurst is
analogous art, it is so far afield from printing that there is no suggestion to apply any
technology in Hurst to a printing system (brief, page 9). We agree with appellants’
second argument.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007