Appeal 2006-3045
Application 10/141,153
IV. ISSUE
The dispositive question is whether the prior art references relied upon
by the Examiner teach or would have suggested the claimed at least two
agitator chambers with at least one agitator half-section disposed in each of
said chambers within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2007).
V. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Agar illustrates a floor waxing or polishing apparatus comprising a motor
for rotating four half-section agitator members and a single chamber for
accommodating the agitator members.
2. Radimak discloses a polishing apparatus having, inter alia, a pair of
conduits and a suction fan for sucking up materials dislodged by agitator
members.
3. The Examiner has not relied on Radimak, Venturini, Browne, and
Brundulak to show the claimed at least two agitator chambers containing the
agitator members.
4. The Examiner has not supplied any reason, suggestion or motivation to
provide at least two agitator chambers for a waxing or polishing apparatus.
VI. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish
a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073-74, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth
in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966) and to provide a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013