Appeal No. 2005-1982 6
Application No. 10/155,006
Appellant again argues that there is no teaching of a horizontal orientation and
no suggestion to modify the apparatus of Smith. For the reasons stated above, we are
not persuaded by this argument.
Appellant further argues that the roller 83 and brush 54 of Smith “do not squeeze
water from the mat as the brush 54 is designed for a scrubbing action.” (Brief, p. 3).
But the claim merely requires the presence of a first set of rollers comprising a top roller
and a bottom roller. The Examiner finds that brush 54 and roller 83 are rollers within
the meaning of the claim. Appellant does not dispute that finding. Moreover, brush 54
serves as a roller in that it acts along with roller 83 to convey the mat through the
apparatus. Given that there is no requirement stated in the claim that the rollers be of a
structure capable of squeezing water from the mat, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument.
For the above reasons, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 1-9.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007