1 Third, the person would know that high pressure water spray can be
2 used to remove debris.
3 Fourth, the person would know that use of a water spray may not be
4 sufficient to remove all debris.
5 Fifth, the person also would know that a vibrating and rotating
6 apparatus can be used to help remove debris.
7 Sixth, the person would know that following water spraying, the part
8 would need to be dried.
9 Seventh, the person would know that spinning can be used to dry the
10 part. Apart from what one learns from Noestheden, almost everyone knows
11 that washing machines spin to at least pre-dry washed clothes and lettuce
12 spinners are used to remove water from lettuce after it is washed.
13
14 B. Discussion
15 Claims 2-10 stand or fall with claim 1. Claim 12 stands or falls with
16 claim 11. Appeal Brief, page 3.
17 Claim 1 and claim 11 call for spinning the part at a speed and for a
18 time period sufficient to eject at least a portion of the manufacturing debris
19 from the part. One skilled in the art would recognize that Sickmeier does
20 exactly that. While Sickmeier also uses vibration along with spinning,
21 nothing in applicants' claims precludes the use of vibration. The claims are
22 "comprising" claims and therefore permit the use of steps not explicitly
23 recited in the claims. One skilled in the art would have known that the
24 vibration and rotation described by Sickmeier removes debris.
25 In prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable
26 interpretation consistent with the specification. Applicants say that spinning
27 has to be sufficient to eject at least a portion of any debris on the part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007