Appeal No. 2006-1139
Application No. 09/740,977
creation of a new slate by replacing a cycle with another cycle from another slate and/or
editing an operational parameter.
These limitations we do not find taught or suggested by Beachem and we do not
find Manson to be of any help in this regard. While Beachem permits variations in each
of the program selections A-H, these variations are preprogrammed and no new slate
may be created by replacing one of the cycles in, say, program A, with a cycle in, say,
program B. Moreover, Beachem provides for no editing of an operational parameter
within a slate.
Manson was applied by the examiner as allegedly teaching the replacement of a
cycle with another cycle, at column 6, lines 5-11, but this portion of Manson merely
describes the substitution by a user of one cycle with a favorite customized customer
cycle. There is no indication in Manson, nor is there any suggestion to the artisan, that
the selection of a customized favorite customer cycle creates any new slate. While
Manson may change options in a washing cycle, for example, Manson seems to be
concerned only with redesignating some cycle as a favorite cycle. We find nothing
therein indicative or suggestive of creating new slates through the designation of a
favorite cycle.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 10-15, and 17-20
under 35 U.S.C. §103.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, claim 8 calls for selectively establishing an
operation mode and a programming mode. Appellants do not present any separate
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007