Appeal No. 2005-0461
Application No. 10/171,031
There is no dispute that Becker, like appellants, discloses
a dishwasher having the presently claimed frame extending around
a tub and a pair of hinges secured to the frame with screws.
Becker does not teach the claimed coaction between a boss and
recess or hole present on the hinge and either frame or tub.
However, as appreciated by appellants, Lotz discloses bosses on a
hinge that are received by holes in a hinge support which, in
turn, is secured to the door pillar of a vehicle. Since we find
that the door pillar of Lotz serves as a frame or, at least, is
ultimately secured to a frame, we agree with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the Lotz disclosure,
would have found it obvious to employ the boss/recess arrangement
in affixing Becker’s hinge to the frame. Manifestly the
boss/recess arrangement was a well-known mechanical expedient for
connecting parts of an apparatus, and appellants do not argue
otherwise. Inasmuch as Lotz discloses the boss/recess mechanism
for connecting the hinge of a door to a support structure, we are
satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found
it obvious to extend this general teaching to the hinge/door
mechanism of Becker’s dishwasher. Appellants have proffered no
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007