Appeal 2006-2180
Application 10/752,180
a tool that serves especially to smooth or polish.”2 See, e.g., In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir.
2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).
Appellants submit that one of ordinary skill in this art would not have
modified the floor cleaning device of Mendelson by using Nagayama’s
burnishing or polishing pad because neither reference teaches “a scrubber
and a separate burnisher on a single floor cleaning machine,” contending
that this person “would not recognize the polishing roll 23 of Mendelson to
be the presently claimed burnisher” (Br. 8). Appellants argue that
Mendelson would have taught that “the polishing roll is a wet operation” in
disclosing that “[l]iquid for waxing and/or polishing purposes is obtained
from a tank 81 . . . through a supply pipe 82 discharging above the roll 23, a
control valve 83 being provided in said pipe for regulating the supply of
material” (Br. 8; Mendelson col. 4, ll. 41-46). In this respect, Appellants
contend that this person would have recognized “that this is entirely different
than a burnishing operation which conventionally is a substantially dry
operation” (Br. 8). Appellants further argue that the floor cleaning device of
Nagayama uses one pad for scrubbing operations which are wet, and another
pad for polishing or burnishing operations which are dry (id. 8-9).
Appellants advance similar arguments in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-3).3
2 See generally, The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English
Language 250 (4th ed., Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000).
3 Appellants submitted a document appended to the Reply Brief in support
of their argument therein. The Examiner entered the Reply Brief but did not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007