Appeal No. 2006-1105
Application No. 10/643,626
over Welt in view of Passafiume (Answer, page 3). Based on the totality of the record,
we affirm the rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as
well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds, and appellant does not dispute, that Welt discloses every
limitation of claim 12 on appeal with the exception of a frame extending completely
around the wiping surface (Answer, page 3; see the Brief, pages 4-6). The examiner
applies Passafiume for the disclosure of a similar roller wiper/grid to that of Welt, where
Passafiume teaches a frame extending completely around the wiping surface to support
the grid (Answer, page 3). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time of appellant’s invention
to have provided a frame surrounding the grid of Welt, as taught by Passafiume, to
provide added rigidity to the grid (id.). We agree.
Appellant argues that if one skilled in the art were to provide the device of Welt
with a frame as taught by Passafiume, one would eliminate the laterally spaced feet
24,26 of Welt since the lower angled portions 54,56 of the frame 12 of Passafiume are
intended for the same function, i.e., to abut the inner wall of the container 90 to prevent
the grid 14 from pivoting or moving from its near vertical orientation as the roller 100 is
rolled against the grid member 14 (Brief, page 5, citing col. 4, ll. 55-64, of Passafiume).
Appellant further argues that providing Welt with a frame extending completely around
the wiping surface would be directly contrary to the teachings of Welt, where Welt
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007