Appeal 2006-3025
Application 10/714,110
turbidity of the rinse water. (Answer 5). The Examiner concedes that
Bashark does not explicitly disclose a step of determining solubility of the
soil on the dishes. Id. However, the Examiner finds that the step of
determining the solubility of the soil as claimed is inherent in the Bashark
process. Id. The Examiner bases this finding on Smith’s teaching that
turbidity is a measure of the suspended and/or soluble soils in the fluid and
Bashark’s disclosure that the degree of turbidity depends on the amount of
soil found on the dishes. Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has improperly equated turbidity
with solubility. (Br. 9). Appellants reference the dictionary definitions of
turbidity and solubility, pointing out that turbidity is a characteristic of a
liquid containing a suspended material, while solubility is a characteristic of
the solid material itself. (Br. 9-10). Appellants further direct us to the
Specification as proof that magnitude of turbidity alone does not determine
solubility. (Br. 10). The Specification teaches that “the solubility of the soil
adhering to the dishes is a function of the temperature of the rinsing liquid
and the length of time during the rinse operation until the increase in
turbidity is zero.” Id.
In our view, Appellants have persuasively argued that one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have viewed the applied
prior art as disclosing, either explicitly or inherently, a method in which
“solubility of soil on the dishes to be cleaned” is measured. Appellants’
arguments, though clearly pointing out the differences between turbidity and
solubility, have not been addressed by the Examiner. (See Answer 6).
Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection cannot be sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013