Appeal 2006-2180
Application 10/752,180
Appellants’ arguments as set forth in the Answer to which we add the
following for emphasis.
The issues in this appeal are whether one skilled in the art would have
modified the floor cleaner device of Mendelson by replacing polishing roll
23 and motor 14 with a polishing or burnishing pad and a motor which can
spin that pad at or above 1,000 rpm as disclosed by Nagayama, and whether
this person would have positioned the front point of the polishing or
burnishing pad within 40 centimeters, that is, 15.74 inches, of the rear point
of contact with the floor of scrubbing roll 22.
We initially consider the claim term “burnishing” as used in the
context of claim 1 and the written description in the specification to indicate
the same floor cleaning operation as the term “polishing” to one of ordinary
skill in this art. Indeed, as the Examiner points out, it is disclosed in the
specification that “[t]he term ‘burnishing’ as used herein means the
relatively high-speed polishing of the coating surface of the floor after
scrubbing to provide a glossy, reflective surface” (specification 7:3-4,
emphasis supplied; see Answer 8). This use of the term comports with
Nagayama’s acknowledgement that in the prior art, “a floor burnishing or
polishing work for buffing and polishing up a floor after a wax is applied” to
the scrubbed floor and the disclosure of using polishing pad 12 with the
“speed of rotation [set] to a polishing speed (2,000 rpm)” to buff a waxed
floor (Nagayama col. 1, ll. 13-26, and col. 6, ll. 38-47). The use of the term
is also in keeping with ordinary dictionary meaning thereof as “[t]o rub with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007