1 turned out to be sufficient. Applicants' use of known techniques for their
2 intended purpose to achieve an expected result is persuasive evidence that
3 the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious. Anderson's-Black
4 Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969); Sakraida v. AG
5 Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976).
6 Applicants maintain at page 5 of the Appeal Brief that the only
7 reasonable combination of Noestheden and Sickmeier would comprising a
8 cleaning method in which the part is first vibrated as shown by Sickmeier
9 and subsequently subject to a power wash followed by a spinning operation
10 as taught by Noestheden. "That, however, is clearly not [a]pplicant's
11 invention as it is defined in claim 1. Rather, claim 1 in the instant
12 application clearly defines the step of first spinning the part (not subjecting it
13 to a vibratory table) and then subsequently power washing the industrial
14 part." Applicants' argument clearly misapprehends the scope of claim 1.
15 Nothing in applicants' claim precludes the use of Sickmeier vibration table.
16 Applicants have not come to grips with the fact that the Sickmeier process
17 involves both vibration and rotation (i.e., spinning) and that the overall
18 process gets rid of debris. The very combination which applicants concede
19 is reasonable, meets the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
20 Applicants also maintain at page 5 of the Appeal Brief that there is
21 no motivation apart from their specification to combine rotational and power
22 wash steps. Applicants do not deny that their claimed steps are each known
23 for the purpose for which applicants are using them. Applicants fail to
24 recognize that those skilled in the art are necessarily motivated to use known
25 techniques for their intended purpose. That is what those skilled in the art
26 do and that is all that applicants have done.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007