Appeal No. 2006-1139
Application No. 09/740,977
slate including a plurality of cycles for operating said laundry appliance in a
particular environment, each cycle including at least one operational parameter of
said laundry appliance; and
means for selecting a desired slate from among said
plurality of slates.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Beachem et al. (Beachem) 4,084,237 Apr. 11, 1978
Manson et al. (Manson) 4,977,394 Dec. 11, 1990
Claims 1, 3-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable
over Beachem in view of Manson.
Claims 2 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b) as anticipated by
Beachem.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that the four corners of a
single prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the
invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
With regard to claims 2 and 16, the examiner takes the position that Beachem
teaches the laundry appliance comprising a CPU (column 21, lines 50-56), a plurality of
slates programmed into the CPU (column 21, lines 16-20), each slate including a
plurality of cycles for operating the laundry appliance (column 22, lines 21-27), each
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007