Appeal No. 2005-0461
Application No. 10/171,031
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results,
to rebut the inference of obviousness drawn from the applied
prior art.
We do not subscribe to appellants’ argument that Lotz,
directed to a hinge/lock assembly for a vehicle door, is non-
analogous to the art of dishwasher doors. We do not agree with
appellants that in order to qualify as analogous art Lotz must be
concerned with the particular problem addressed by appellants.
In our view, it is sufficient that both Lotz and Becker are
directed to the problem of securing the hinge of a door to a
support structure. Certainly, hinges were well known for
securing doors to the frames of a myriad of products. Again,
as noted above, appellants have presented no evidence that
dishwashers within the scope of the appealed claims are
unexpectedly superior to dishwashers fairly taught by Becker.
Appellants have not contested with substantive argument the
examiner’s separate rejection of claims 11 and 20 over Becker in
view of Lotz and Friedewald. In particular, appellants have not
refuted the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the welding method of
Friedewald for attaching Becker’s hinge to the frame.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007