Appeal No. 2007-0358
Application 10/873,477
intensive spraying of a respective region in response to the sensing by a sensor of a
condition in the dishwasher indicating that items in the respective region have a
soil condition requiring a more intensive spraying, such as is recited in claim 11 of
the present application.” (Id. at 13.)
The examiner, on the other hand, explains that DE ‘670 describes a device
with at least one dish rack (2-5), spraying devices (7-10) covering specific areas of,
and integrated with, the dish rack, and a control mechanism for individually
controlling each of the spraying devices during a washing operation, whereby
individually operating solenoids (valves) 21-24 control the intensity of the spray
through spray devices 7-10. (Examiner’s Answer at 5.) The examiner observes
that appealed claim 1 is “quite broad in scope” and therefore reads on the device
described in DE ‘470. (Examiner’s Answer at 3-4 and 6.) As to claim 11, the
examiner reasons:
Firstly, DE ‘670 further discloses the desirability of controlling the
intensity of the spray devices based on the soiling degree of the dishes
(see, for instance, page 3, lines 3-5 & 11-16 and claim 3 of the
Official translation). Secondly, COOPER teaches that it is known in
the washing machine art to control/select a wash cycle based on a
condition in a dishwasher, inter alia a solid condition (turbidity) (see
col. 3, lines 23-32). The Examiner notes that the entire purpose for
conventionally sensing turbidity in a dishwasher is to control the
dishwasher based on the sensed turbidity, such being well understood
by one having ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it would have been
obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to combine the well known concept in COOPER
of using turbidity sensor and controlling a wash cycle based on the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013