1 Specification, page 2, line 21 through page 3, line 2. Sickmeier vibrates and
2 rotates so that debris will be removed off the part being rotated. Applicants
3 seek the same result, i.e., removal of debris, through spinning or rotation.
4 Hence, the language "spinning" in claims 1 and 11 does not distinguish the
5 claims from "rotation" described by Sickmeier.
6 One skilled in the art would also know that power washing has been
7 used to remove debris, but that power washing may not remove all debris.
8 Therefore one skilled in the art would recognize that it would be useful at
9 some point in the process to remove debris which may not necessarily be
10 removed by the power washing step.
11 What surfaces in this appeal is that applicants claim the use of known
12 debris removing techniques for their intended purpose. Specifically,
13 applicants claim the use of known rotational (i.e., spinning,) and power wash
14 techniques to clean manufactured parts.
15 It is not apparent, on this record, how the claimed process results in a
16 different function being achieved. In other words, what is the practical
17 advantage of the claimed process vis-à-vis the process described by
18 Noestheden? The Noestheden process is said to remove debris. Applicants,
19 which include Noestheden, now tell us in the specification that Noestheden
20 is not necessarily efficient in removing debris (at least "in some cases", none
21 of which are identified). What that means, of course, is that additional steps
22 must be taken by those skilled in the art using the Noestheden process when
23 the Noestheden process "in some cases" does not remove all debris. Another
24 debris removing step is a manifest solution. Sickmeier provides a known
25 additional method for removing debris. One skilled in the art manifestly
26 would know that both debris removing steps could be combined to more
27 efficiently remove debris "in … [those] cases" where power washing itself
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007