Ex Parte Thomas et al - Page 2

               Appeal 2006-2180                                                                             
               Application 10/752,180                                                                       

                      Claim 1 illustrates Appellants’ invention of a floor cleaner device, and              
               is representative of the claims on appeal:                                                   
                      1.  A floor cleaner device for cleaning a floor, the floor cleaner device             
               having a front and a rear, the floor cleaner device comprising:                              
                      a scrubber for wetting and cleaning the floor, the scrubber having a                  
               front and a rear; and                                                                        
                      a burnisher for burnishing the floor, the burnisher positioned in closer              
               proximity to the rear of the scrubber than to the front of the scrubber,                     
               wherein the scrubber comprises a scrubber brush having an axis of rotation                   
               substantially parallel to the floor and substantially perpendicular to an axis               
               running from the front to the rear of the floor cleaner device, said burnisher               
               comprising a burnisher pad and a motor for spinning the burnisher pad at a                   
               speed at or above 1000 revolutions per minute, wherein the burnisher and                     
               the scrubber are positioned relative to one another such that a front-most                   
               point of the burnisher pad is located less than 40 centimeters from a rear-                  
               most point of contact of the scrubber brush with the floor.                                  
                      The references relied on by the Examiner are:                                         
               Mendelson                      US 2,622,254              Dec. 23, 1952                      
               Hufton                         US 3,992,747              Nov. 23, 1976                      
               Nagayama                       US 4,910,824              Mar. 27, 1990                      
               Blehert                        US 5,093,955              Mar. 10, 1992                      
                      The Examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on                       
               appeal:                                                                                      
                      claims 1, 4, 5, 9 through 11, 13 through 15, 44, and 51, 53, 56, 57, and              
                      59 through 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                     
                      Mendelson in view of Nagayama (Answer 3-5);                                           
                      claims 2, 3, 6, 52, 54, 55, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                  
                      unpatentable over Mendelson in view of Nagayama as applied to                         
                      claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Blehert (id. 5-6); and                        
                      claims 42 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                  
                      Mendelson in view of Nagayama and Hufton (id. 6-7).                                   
                      Appellants argue the appealed claims as a group, subsuming the                        
               second and third grounds of rejection, which involve “tertiary” references,                  

                                                     2                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007