1 well as in premature pollution or saturation of the water-based washing
2 solution. Specification, page 2, lines 1-3.
3 We are also told that another disadvantage was that in some cases the
4 water spray was insufficient to remove all of the debris, such as metal
5 shavings, oil and coarse sand, from the part during cleaning. Specification,
6 page 2, lines 4-7.
7
8 The invention
9 The invention is readily understood by reference to the two
10 independent claims on appeal, viz., claims 1 and 11.
11 Claim 1: A method for cleaning an industrial part comprising
12 the steps of: spinning the part at a speed and for a time period
13 sufficient to eject at least a portion of manufacturing debris from the
14 part following a manufacturing operation, thereafter power washing
15 the part with a cleaning solution.
16 Claims 11: A method for cleaning an industrial part in which
17 two or more manufacturing operations are performed on the part
18 comprising the steps of: spinning the part at a speed and for a time
19 sufficient to eject at least a portion of manufacturing debris and
20 cutting oil from the part prior to conveying it to the next
21 manufacturing operation; and washing the part with a cleaning
22 solution following a final manufacturing operation.
23
24 Examiner's rejection
25 The examiner rejected claims 1-12 as being unpatentable under
26 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noestheden and Sickmeier.
27
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007